Dangiras Mačiulis and Darius Staliūnas

STUDIEN zur Ostmitteleuropaforschung 32

Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883-1940 Dangiras Mačiulis and Darius Staliūnas, Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883-1940 STUDIEN ZUR OSTMITTELEUROPAFORSCHUNG

Herausgegeben vom Herder-Institut für historische Ostmitteleuropaforschung – Institut der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft

32 Dangiras Mačiulis and Darius Staliūnas Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883-1940

VERLAG HERDER-INSTITUT · MARBURG · 2015 Bibliografi sche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar

Diese Publikation wurde einem anonymisierten Peer-Review-Verfahren unterzogen. This publication has undergone the process of anonymous, international peer review.

© 2015 by Herder-Institut für historische Ostmitteleuropaforschung – Institut der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, 35037 Marburg, Gisonenweg 5-7 Printed in Germany Alle Rechte vorbehalten Satz: Herder-Institut für historische Ostmitteleuropaforschung – Institut der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, 35037 Marburg Druck: KN Digital Printforce GmbH, Ferdinand-Jühlke-Straße 7, 99095 Erfurt Umschlagbilder: links: Cover of the journal „Trimitas“ (Trumpet) of the Riflemen’s Union of Lithuania. Trimitas, 1930, no. 41 rechts: The ﬁ rst watch of Lithuanian soldiers at the tower of Gediminas Castle. 10 28 1939. LNM ISBN 978-3-87969-401-3 Contents

Introduction ...... 1 I Under the Rule of the Romanovs ...... 6 II In the Vortex of the First World War ...... 45 III A Time of Changes: 1918-1923 ...... 63 IV How to Liberate the Capital? (1923-1939) ...... 92 V The Recovery of the Capital: 1939-1940 ...... 171 In Lieu of a Conclusion ...... 200 Zusammenfassung ...... 207 List of abbreviations ...... 210 Bibliography ...... 212 Index ...... 234

Introduction

There are few cities in Europe which are so mythologized as Vilnius. I have in mind the stories taken from the past, which do not necessarily have to correspond to the facts. The history of this city is so peculiar that it simply asks to be transferred to the space of a fairy-tale, which has been done many a time already and the stories differed no matter who they were told by: Lithuanians, Poles, Jews or Belarusians. Czesław Miłosz 1

From the beginning of the 14th century till the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Com- monwealth, Vilnius was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and at the same time the cultural and economical centre of the state.2 At the end of the 19th century Vilnius was one of the regional centres of the western borderlands of the Russian Em- pire, with about 150,000 inhabitants. What illustrates the offi cial status of Vilnius as a regional centre best is that until 1912 it was the centre of the governor-generalship. While in the middle of the 19th century, particularly in the 1860s, the imperial authorities sought to turn this city into a centre of Russian power and carry out so-called Rus- sifi cation in it, in later decades we see a clear tendency of lessening Vilnius’s infl uence (an illustration of this could be the separation of the three provinces that were referred to as Belarusian provinces from the Vilnius governor-generalship in 1869-1870, or the abolishment of the governor-generalship itself in 1912). This desire of the imperial authorities to decrease Vilnius’s infl uence in the region was related to the conviction that this city had remained a bastion of Polish culture. 3 A Russian University was not even founded in the city, as the authorities feared that the Poles could become established in it. At the same time, as the former capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the largest city of the region that had an institution of higher education that had operated for a long

1 MIŁOSZ, pp. 148-149. 2 This research was funded by a grant (No VAT-48/2012) from the Research Council of Lithua- nia. 3 STALIŪNAS, An Awkward City, pp. 222-243.

1 time (until 1832), and the location of many different cultural and scientifi c institutions, Vilnius was the informal capital of the region for different national groups.4 According to the 1897 general census of the Russian Empire, the percentage of the Jews in Vilnius accounted for 40 per cent, that of the Poles constituted 30.9 per cent the Russians 20 per cent the number of the Belarusians 4.2 per cent, while the percentage of the Lithuanians stood only at 2.1 per cent.5 The data concerning the national make-up of the residents of the city of Vilnius collected on different occasions at the beginning of the 20th century, or the results of the election to the local government or Russian State Dumas were not very pleasing for Lithuanians: due to the small number of Lith- uanian voters, Lithuanian fi gures had no possibilities to be elected to these institutions. The fact that Lithuanian activists also had no allies in this struggle, as will be shown in this book, also complicated the situation. Leaders representing one or another national group of Lithuania did not approve of the political programme of the Lithuanians, which provided for the creation of territorial autonomy fi rst and later that of an independent state “within its ethnographic boundaries” with Vilnius as its capital. Several attested-to fragments of speeches or conversations of Lithuanian public fi g- ures of that time recorded the complicated situation of the Lithuanians in Vilnius at the beginning of the 20th century. According to one of the Lithuanian activists, Petras Klimas , at a charity evening organised by the Lithuanian Society for Support of War Victims at the beginning of 1915, Father Juozas Bakšys fi rst looked at the Lithuanian social activists sitting in the fi rst rows and then raised his eyes to the ceiling and sighed in unison with the future President of Lithuania Antanas Smetona : “If the ceiling of Mikalauja tumbled over now, all of Lithuanianness would disappear in Vilnius…”6 Petras Leonas , after the First World War had come to an end, joked about the situation in Vilnius as follows: “it would suffi ce for a group of armed “peoviaks” to arrive in a large motor-car and take away us, six ministers, plus the Presidium of the Council, and there would be no Lithuania”.7 Other circumstances also show that the Lithuanian social activists understood the complexity of the ethno-demographic and political situation. At the beginning of the 20th century, some activists, fi rst and foremost those who belonged to the Catholic current, suggested that Kaunas should be declared the centre for gathering Lithuanians together, and not Vilnius.8 Nonetheless, irrespective of all these circumstances, the majority of the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement saw Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithuania; hence, it is important to make clear what arguments determined this persistent desire of the leaders of Lithuanian Nationalism to create a nation state with Vilnius as its capital. The Lithuanians’ persistence can only be understood in relation

4 WENDLAND, Region ohne Nationalität, pp. 77-100. 5 It should be underlined that the “native language” rather than the “nationality” was recorded. 6 KLIMAS, p. 54. The hall at the Church of Nicholas is meant. 7 PETRAS LEONAS: Mano pergyvenimai [My Experiences], in: LMAVB RS, f. 117, b. 1204, l. 401. Peoviaks are members of POW (Polska Organizacja Wojskowa [Polish Military Or- ganisation]). 8 GUDAITIS, p. 16; ALEKSANDRAVIČIUS, p. 162; STALIŪNAS, Kauno vizija, pp. 59-64.

2 with the Lithuanian national project, fi rst and foremost the geographical image of a future Lithuania. The arguments of the nationalists’ claims to a “national territory” can be generalised in three groups. The fi rst group includes arguments of a cultural-political nature (the ethnographic principle; arguments that in one way or another could be understood as espousing “historical rights” to an area); the second group includes arguments connected to power (the aim to occupy as large a territory as possible as well as strategically important areas or economically signifi cant centres); and fi nally the third group, which uses, geographical arguments (references to “natural” borders, which are supposedly marked by natural objects such as water bodies, mountains, its presence on an island, etc.).9 In this book, we shall try to determine which motives were important for Lithu- anians and how they tried to implement the idea of a national Lithuania with Vilnius. Researchers also sometimes notice that the ties of national groups can vary with different parts of what could be called the “national space” or “geo-body”10: we can separate these parts into the core, the semi-core and the periphery. Generally the main places of memory (a term coined by Pierre Nora ) are tied to the core. Nationalists become much more strongly attached to the core than to the periphery, thus their readiness to fi ght for it is always the greatest.11 As has been aptly noticed in studies on nationalism, for a nationalist it seems that “national territory” is as natural a thing for a person as having a nose and two ears, and a loss of a part of one’s “national territory” actually is much worse than simply losing an ear, because in the case of this “national body” this lost part fi nds itself on someone else’s “body” which it does not belong to at all.12 The attitude towards the Vilnius issue in the context of the Lithuanian Nationalism can be interpreted in many ways. Historians who favour the primordialist approach would consider such a problem as non-existent, as from the beginning of the national movement all Lithuanians, including the uneducated masses, knew that Vilnius had been, was and would be the capital of Lithuania. Those following a constructivist approach would take interest in the arguments of the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement and most probably wonder at what at fi rst glance might seem like the irrational choices made by the Lithuanians. The authors of this book favour the ethno-sym- bolist approach (represented fi rst and foremost by the works of Anthony D. Smith ) and in observing it are obligated not only to analyse the arguments of Lithuanian nationalists uttered in support of the thesis that Vilnius should be the capital of Lithuanian Lithuania, but also take historical tradition into consideration. The principal objective of the book is to analyse the emergence, evolution and implementation among the masses of the idea of Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithu- ania, which was nurtured in the late 19th and fi rst half of the 20th century (until 1940). While analysing the said problems, we will unavoidably have to discuss the strategies of the symbolic appropriation of Vilnius employed by the Lithuanian intellectual and

9 COLIN/SMITH, pp. 502-518; PORTER, pp. 639-653; SCHWEIGER. 10 WINICHAKUL, p. X. 11 WHITE. 12 BILLIG, p. 75.

3 political elite.13 Alongside the symbolic takeover of Vilnius, its Lithuanisation, i.e. the aim that the majority of the city’s inhabitants would be Lithuanians, was also of great importance. Lithuanisation of Vilnius was a signifi cant part of the Lithuanian national project as the character of the state, in line with the nationalistic way of thinking, is for the most part determined by its capital. The nationalists of the time found it hard to imagine a national state with the capital, i.e. the power centre, in which the titular nation makes up no more than a few percent of its citizens. This goal was achievable not only by encouraging Lithuanians to relocate to the historical capital, but also “reminding” denationalized citizens of their ethnic origin. Therefore, this book will inevitably discuss the efforts of Lithuanians to change the make-up of the inhabitants of Vilnius in their favour. This book does not analyse in detail the attitudes held by the Jews, Poles, Belaru- sians or Russians of the time, but rather to briefl y make it clear what kind of counter-arguments the Lithuanian claims to Vilnius were up against. The primary focus here will lie on the consideration of the Lithuanian case in as much detail as possible. Thus, this book belongs to the fi eld of nationalism studies. The term nationalism is understood in the book as an analytical category bearing no negative connotations. It can be perceived as a social activity aimed at the implementation of a national project (the ideal), i.e. a nation state, encompassing all fellow-countrymen and nationalizing them, or, in a narrower sense, as the ideology of the above-described activity. The phrase national movement is a narrower term which defi nes a social movement that pursues the implementation of the above-mentioned ideals until the nation state is created, and later passing the function on to the nationalizing nationalism, namely the political and intellectual elite of the nation state which strives for the said involvement of the masses. As the epicentre of the research will focus on the analysis of certain images, Lithu- anian discourse will be given much attention. Moreover, as the idea of a modern Lith- uania with Vilnius was rather concrete and leaders of the Lithuanian Nationalism made attempts to embody it, this research will unavoidably deal with events traditionally understood as political history, including the history of international relations.14 Neither traditionally understood political history nor the problems of international relations play an important role in this book and do not harbour claims to originality, but serve only as a context. Besides, the book will extensively analyse the process of the nation-

13 The strategies of the symbolic appropriation of Vilnius have already received attention from historians: MIKNYS, Vilnius, pp. 108-120; WENDLAND, Stadgeschichtskulturen, pp. 31-60; BUMBLAUSKAS/LIEKIS/POTAŠENKO; SMALIANCHUK, pp. 327-343; DĄBROWSKI, p. 271; FISH- MAN, pp. 157-170; ZASZTOWT, pp. 87-94; NIKŽENTAITIS, pp. 217-227; WEEKS, The War, pp. 59-74. 14 In this case we can base ourselves on an abundant amount of historiography: SENN; Ž EPKAITĖ, Diplomatija; IDEM, Vilniaus; TARKA, Konfrontacja; LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos, 1992; IDEM, Politika ir diplomatija; IDEM, Litewska, pp. 33-64; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920; IDEM, Litwa; IDEM, Stosunki 1921-1939; IDEM, Ultimatum; BLOMEIER, pp. 112-116, 147-160; GIM- ŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS; KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA; KASPARAVIČIUS, Don Kichotas, pp. 49-72; IDEM, Dvi; IDEM, Tarp; ŽULYS, pp. 99-112; LIEKIS, 1939; VILKELIS; Suvalkų sutartis; ŽALYS, vol. 1.

4 alization of the masses. Hence, this research has little to do with the history of towns, however, is akin to research that focuses on various practices of socialization (through various myths, cults, festivals, rituals, etc.) that are utilized by national elites.15 The chapters of this book are arranged in chronological order. The First Chapter analyses why in the late period of the Russian Empire the leaders of Lithuanian Nation- alism decided to declare Vilnius the centre/capital of national Lithuania, what problems they faced and how they intended to implement this idea. The Second Chapter deals with the same problems during the years of the First World War. At that time a new player appeared – the German occupation government, which greatly contributed to at least temporary strengthening the positions of the Lithuanians in Vilnius. The Third Chapter, encompassing the period between 1918 and 1923, is devoted to the traditionally understood political history more than any other part of the book. The often-changing political situation clearly reveals the determination of the Lithuanian political elite to make Vilnius the capital of the nation state. During the period from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 1920s the idea of Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithua- nia became undoubtedly established as one of the main constituent parts of Lithuanian Nationalism; what’s more, Vilnius became part of Poland, so in the Fourth Chapter covering the period from 1923 to 1939, most attention will be focused on how nationalising nationalism16 (the Lithuanian political elite) instilled this idea in the masses. It is known from historiography that the Vilnius Liberation Union (VLU) was especially active in this sphere, so special attention will be given to it. The activity of Vilnius’s Lithuani- ans, and particularly the support provided to it by the Lithuanian government, will be of signifi cance to us insofar as how much their activity was realised in the rhetoric of the Lithuanian Nationalism as an argument substantiating the claims of the Lithuanians to Vilnius. The last (fi fth) chapter of the book is concerned with how the Lithuanian political elite, having received Vilnius from Stalin in 1939, tried to make it a Lithuanian city. In the last part of the book we shall not only sum up the main conclusions of the research, but also briefl y review what fate befell Vilnius as the capital after 1940. We have based our present study not only on earlier research but also on abundant sources. In analysing the formation of the idea of Vilnius as the centre/capital of national Lithuania, and the responses of the Lithuanian political and intellectual elite to the change in the political situation tied to the status of Vilnius, we based our fi ndings mostly on the periodical press. Newspapers and magazines served as a highly important source of this study in investigating many other themes. They were what created the discourse about Vilnius as the capital of national Lithuania. Diaries or other egodoc- uments will play only a secondary role. We shall make use of unpublished archival sources in discussing the activity of the VLU and the policy of the Lithuanian authorities in Vilnius in 1939-1940.

15 MOSSE; FRANÇOIS/SIEGRIST/VOGEL; HEIN. 16 BRUBAKER.

5 I Under the Rule of the Romanovs

The birth and spread of the idea

The idea that Vilnius was not only a historical capital of Lithuania but that it is also important to modern Lithuanians was formed at the very beginning of the modern Lith- uanian National Movement (nationalism). The Lithuanian National Movement could, in a symbolic sense, be dated back to 1883 when the illegal newspaper Aušra (Dawn) (1883-1886) intended for the Lithuanians of the Russian Empire began being published in the so-called Prussian Lithuania. One of the activists of that movement, Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis , in his poem Tevynainiu giesme (The Song of the Countrymen) published in 1884, remembers Vilnius not only as “our” old “castle throne” [sosto pilis] but also expressed hope ”God bless us to have Vilnius/to hear mother’s tongue spoken there”.1 It is true, in the poet’s opinion the reader might fi nd the term “throne castle” diffi cult to understand so it is clarifi ed with a footnote explaining that this means Vilni- us; and “to acquire Vilnius” most probably was understood rather moderately there – as the fi rm entrenchment of the Lithuanian language in the city’s public life. Later the term “castle throne” (sosto pilis, sostapilis; a capital) was frequently used in the Lithuanian press without any explanations as to what town it referred to. In fact, it was quite rare that Vilnius as a historical or future capital was referred to in the Lithuanian publications at the end of the 19th century. Considerations of the publishers of the newspaper Aušra or persons related to the newspaper about the potential centre of the Lithuanian national movement might serve as a confi rmation of these statements. The problem of where the centre of the national movement was to be located had not been formulated as such at the time Aušra was published, but there were discussions about where it would be possible to move the publication of the newspaper after the imperial regime had changed, or which town could host the founding of a centre for a scientifi c society. Usually either Kaunas or Vilnius was mentioned in these discussions (sometimes the priority was given to Kaunas)2 while sometimes only Kaunas

1 VYTURYS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS], p. 10. 2 [JONAS BASANAVIČIUS]: Iš istorijos musų atsigaiveliavimo. (1873-1883). Atsiminimai Dr. Jono Basanavičiaus [From the History of our Rebirth. (1873-1883). Reminiscences by Dr. Jonas Basanavičius], in: Varpas 3 (1903), p. 71; Apie insteigimą Lietuviszkôs moksłû

6 was mentioned.3 Kaunas as a potential centre to carry out activities for the Lithuanian National Movement in the projects of the Aušra publishers testiﬁ ed to the fact that more attention was devoted to the practical rather than symbolic aspects.4 Vilnius was seen as a city that was far too alien to Lithuanians: “Today Vilnius is not mine”, Davainis-Sil- vestraitis5 wrote with sadness. The above-cited poem Tevynainiu giesme is also imbued with similar melancholy: “It is sorrowful for a Lithuanian to be in Vilnius;/There is grave upon grave there;/He sees the destruction of the language there;/Others achieved greatness there.”6 However, it is in Aušra already that we ﬁ nd texts that deals with the earlier activity of the Lithuanians in Vilnius. Even the publication of Davainis-Silves- traitis himself contains some optimistic gleams:

Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania that has lots of memories from our past, has not disappeared for all of us altogether. Though Polish and Jewish, as well as Russian, are languages that reign there, all the Catholics consider themselves to be Lithuanian. The Catholics speaking the Polish language are happy to be of Lithuanian origin and say that the Lithuanian language is the language of their ancestors.7

In 1885, the ethnic composition of the inhabitants of Vilnius province was published in the Aušra. It showed that Lithuanians accounted for nearly a half of the inhabitants and constituted the largest ethnic group in the province.8 These ﬁ gures could also be treated as giving hope that in the long run it would be possible to Lithuanianise the historical capital. The fact that little attention was paid to the theme of Vilnius, as well as to this province, on the pages of both liberal and Catholic illegal Lithuanian press can also be illustrated by the amount of correspondence of this territory. For example, the authors from Vilnius province accounted only for 10 per cent of all those who wrote in Aušra.9 The

bendrystês (draugystês) [On Founding Lithuanian Science Community], in: Aušra 4 (June 1883), p. 91; Gromatnyčia [Writings], in: Aušra 4 (June 1883), p. 119. 3 JONAS BASANAVIČIUS’ letter of 24 August 1882 (new style) to M. Šernas, in: KAPSUKAS, Raštai, vol. 10, p. 483. 4 We shall come back to Kaunas’ alternative again. 5 VEVERSYS [DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS]: Lietuva ir jos sunus [Lithuania and its Sons], in: Aušra 1 (January 1885), p. 20. 6 VYTURYS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS], p. 11. 7 VEVERSIS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS]: Vilnius, in: Aušra 10 and 11 (October and November 1884), p. 374. Similarly: VEVERSYS [IDEM]: Vilnius, in: Aušra 6 (June 1885), p. 167. Such interpretations are also found in memoirs. Famous Lithuanian Social Democrat Kipras Bielinis recalls the situation in Vilnius at the beginning of the 20th century as follows: “When living in Vilnius, with the exception of the parts of the town inhabited by the Jews where I did not try to speak Lithuanian, I managed to speak Lithuanian with everybody; but where I was not understood or where people did not know how to answer, most often they explained that they were Lithuanians but they could not speak Lithuanian”: BIELINIS, Penk- tieji, p. 212. 8 Isz Lietuvos [From Lithuania], in: Aušra 4 and 5 (April and May 1885), p. 138. 9 OCHMAŃSKI, p. 138.

7 geographical distribution of those who wrote in the liberal press (Varpas, Ūkininkas and Naujienos) in 1889-1905 also speaks for itself: the number of people from the Su- valki Province totalled 1363, authors from Kaunas accounted for 840, and those from Vilnius constituted only 251.10 Moreover, it was quite often the case in the 1880s-90s that these publications covered different events in Vilnius, which had nothing in common with the Lithuanian National Movement. Several circumstances determined the fact that Vilnius was “forgotten”. The fi rst reason is of more general nature. From 1883 to the end of the century cultural and social-economic demands prevailed in the programme of Lithuanian Nation- alism and the idea of political independence, though it was already publicised,11 was perceived as an aspiration of a more distance future rather than a political agenda of the day.12 This circumstance about the irrelevance of both independence and political autonomy in the program of Lithuanian Nationalism at that stage of the movement can be based not only on the fact that at that time the Lithuanian activists did not discuss this issue but also on additional arguments. For example, we fail to fi nd an attempt to defi ne the boundaries of that modern ethno-linguistic Lithuania more exactly in Aušra13, which had to be done without fail thinking at least about territorial autonomy. Therefore as long as the issue of political autonomy was not on the actual agenda of the political activity, the issue of the capital of that autonomous formation being designed was not so relevant. The second reason is also related to the nature of the Lithuanian National Movement in the last decades of the 19th century. At that time its major aim was nationalisation of masses, i.e., the peasants, therefore it is understandable that the greatest attention was paid to the rural rather than urban problems. According to one of the leaders of the liberal trend Kazys Grinius , “the problem of urbanisation was not clear to us then; it was felt instinctively that having failed to Lithuanianise the towns we shall become the pawns of others.”14 Meanwhile the texts that appeared in the Catholic publications can be interpreted as a warning to the Lithuanians not to move to towns, where they would become denationalised soon. “On the edges, and particularly in towns, Lith- uanian presence was disappearing like snow in spring [...]. He who happened to live in St. Petersburg, Liepāja, Riga, and especially in Kaunas and Vilnius, saw lots of Lith- uanians turning into Poles.”15 The third reason is much more prosaic and it is clearly seen from the pages of the illegal Lithuanian press – no activities of the Lithuanians were observed in that town: “One can see wrangling between the Catholic Poles and the

10 Calculated on the basis of the table “Territorial Distribution of Correspondence of Illegal Pe- riodical Press of Varpininkai (a term derived from the monthly Varpas (The Bell)” presented by Rimantas Miknys in: MIKNYS, Lietuvos, pp. 181-182. Statistics on correspondence until 1899 would be more useful in this case. Such data are most likely to show marginalisation of Vilnius and the Vilnius province more vividly; however, unfortunately, only general statistics of 1889-1905 is available. 11 J. SZL. [JONAS ŠLIŪPAS]: Lietuwininkai ir Amerika [Prussian Lithuanians and America], in: Lietuviszkasis bałsas from 22.12.1885, p. 50. 12 MIKNYS, P. Višinskis, p. 133. 13 STALIŪNAS, Lietuvos, pp. 271-292. 14 GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 1, p. 176. 15 Lietuviai miestuose [Lithuanians in the Cities], in: Tėvynės sargas 10 (October 1899), p. 21.

8 Orthodox Belarusians, but nobody thinks about the presence of Lithuanians there.”16 Of no less importance is the fact that the organised activity of the Lithuanians started in Vilnius only in the last years of the 19th century. As long as there are no active Lithua- nian public fi gures in Vilnius, there is nobody to provide correspondence. At the very end of the 19th century Lithuanians began increasingly to settle in Vil- nius.17 In this way the Lithuanian newspapers published in Prussia did not only receive correspondents writing for them but also the activities of these Lithuanians provided material for various publications. From the turn of the centuries the number of the articles devoted to Vilnius, and the situation of the Lithuanians in that town in particular, increased several times both in the Catholic and liberal press. A new stage of a real activity of the Lithuanians in Vilnius dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. In proclamations “Lietuviai ir lietuvaitēs” (“Lithuanian men and women”) that were disseminated around Lithuania in 1900 Jonas Biliūnas defi ned Vilnius as “the very heart” of the fatherland.18 One of the activists of Lithuanian Na- tionalism Mykolas Biržiška recalled that in 1903-1904, in a secret Lithuanian Student Association in Moscow “the signifi cance of Vilnius not only to the ancient Lithuanian State but also to the revival of the Lithuanian nation was becoming more and more evident.”19 Actualising the idea of Vilnius as a future capital is related to the politicisation of the Lithuanian National Movement. During the fi rst decade of their activity (until the 1905 Revolution) the Lithuanian Social Democrats constantly indicated the idea of independent Lithuania in their different documents as their aspiration.20 At the beginning of the 20th century, the aim of creating an independent state was clearly recorded in the Lithuanian liberal press and the party programs of Lithuanian Democrats.21 The aspiration for political autonomy, and later for the creation of an independent state too inevitably made the Lithuanian activists make the boundaries of Lithuania and the issue of the capital more concrete. This politicisation of the national movement was heavily infl uenced by both strengthening of the movement itself (the formation of different political currents and parties (Social Democrats, Democrats, and the Catholics) and the abundance of illegal literature); it was also heavily infl uenced by the liberalisation of the political regime, particularly from 1904; as well as by the political aspirations clearly formulated by other national movements: “The Poles, Ukrainians and many others decided to secede from Russia some time ago and to create their own republics. We can do the same be-

16 ŽEMKALNIS: Gromatos isz kelionės [Letters from a Journey], in: Varpas 9 (September 1892), p. 133. 17 This issue is dealt with in more detail in the following section. 18 LVIA, f. 446, ap. 2, b. 648. 19 BIRŽIŠKA, Dėl mūsų, p. 11. 20 MITRULEVIČIUS, pp. 35-44. 21 BLINDA [POVILAS VIŠINSKIS]: Credo. Kilk ir kelk! [Rise and Raise!], in: Varpas 5 (May 1901), p. 50; REVOLIUCIONIERIUS [VINCAS KAPSUKAS]: Politiškas Maskolijos judėjimas ir lietuviai [Political Movement in Russia and Lithuanians], in: Varpas 1 (January 1903), pp. 12-13; RED.: Senuosius metu baigiant, naujuosius pradėdami [Ending the Old Year, Starting the New Year], in: Ūkininkas 1 (1904) p. 7; MIKNYS, Lietuvos; IDEM, Vilniaus, p. 179; IDEM, P. Višinskis, pp. 133-137.

9 cause otherwise, having thrown off the yoke of the Tsar, we would fi nd ourselves under the yoke of others, though perhaps to a lesser degree, but all the same, we would have to serve others and suffer.“22 Hence, the followers of the liberal Lithuanian trend thought more or less in the following way: neighbouring nations seek to create a nation states and if the Lithuanians were not quick enough they would fi nd themselves dependent not upon Russians, but on other nations. It is clear that the Lithuanian political leaders feared Polish expansionism most, and it was from 1904 that the issue of the Kingdom of Poland, as that of the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland, became the theme of frequent forums of politicians who were opposed to the imperial regime.23 It is most likely that the challenge of competing nationalisms was one of the incentives for Lithuanians to clearly declare that in Vilnius rather than anywhere else was to be the capital of a future autonomous (and later independent) Lithuania where the Constituent Seimas [Parliament] had to be convened. The capital of Lithuania was indicated neither in the 1896 program of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party24 nor in the 1902 program of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, though most probably it was implied that it would be Vilnius. However the 1905 documents and later programs of the parties clearly speak about “Lithuania’s autonomy with the Seimas in Vilnius.”25 In their 1906 memorandum to the Pope, the Lithuanian activists asked him to unite the three dioceses of “Lithuania” (Vilnius, Samogitia (Telšiai) and Seinai) into a single church province, which would be governed by the Archbishop of Lithuania from “Lith- uania’s capital Vilnius”. The fact that Lithuanians fi nally named their future capital was encouraged by the atmosphere of freedom created by the revolution of 1905, though it might be that it was other political programs that had just declared Vilnius as a capital of another, historical Lithuania, had triggered this as well. The discussions held between the Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusian and Jewish activists in Vilnius in 1904-1905 showed that all of them, with the exception of the Lithuanians, gave priority to Lithua- nia’s autonomy within its historical boundaries.26 The most distinct collective action of all Lithuanian political trends establishing the signifi cance of Vilnius not only as a historical capital but also as that of new Lithuania was the congress of Lithuanians held in Vilnius (Lietuvių susivažiavimas Vilniuje) on 21-22 November (4-5 December) 1905, which was soon renamed the Great Seimas of Vilnius (Didysis Vilniaus Seimas). About 2000 representatives from all over Lithuania took part in it. The representatives of all Lithuanian political trends who participated

22 RED.: Senuosius metus baigiant, naujuosius pradėdami [Ending the Old Year, Starting the New Year], in: Ūkininkas 1 (January 1904), p. 7. 23 MIKNYS, Vilniaus, pp. 176-180. 24 Programas. 25 For programs of the Lithuanian Democratic Parties see: MIKNYS, Lietuvos, pp. 184-217; Tautiškosios, p. 185; BIELINIS, 1905 metai, 35; IDEM, Penktieji metai, p. 529; Lietuvių Krikščionių Demokratų susivienijimo programo projektas [The Draft Program of the Union of the Lithuanian Christian Democrats], in: Draugija 1 (January 1907), p. 72. 26 P-TIS [JONAS VILEIŠIS]: Lietuvių ir lenkų irridentų kuopa [The Group of Lithuanian and Pol- ish Irredentists], in: Varpas 1-2 (1905), p. 3. It is likely that the Lithuanians who took part in these meetings understood Lithuania within its ethnographic boundaries, and the Poles understood it within its historical boundaries: MIKNYS, Vilniaus, pp. 188-189.

10 Representatives of Alsėdžiai at the Great Seimas of Vilnius. Seated in the centre – Stanislovas Narutavičius (signatory of the act of independence of 1918). 1905. NML in the Seimas prepared compromise resolutions. The resolution adopted at the Seimas said that “the current Tsarist government is our most bitter enemy” and demanded Lith- uania’s autonomy within the ethnographic boundaries with the Parliament in Vilnius.27 Hence, in the last decades of the 19th century, the problem of Vilnius as a Lithuani- an city was seldom discussed; from the turn of the 20th century it began to be included into Lithuanian discourse ever more often and from the beginning of the 20th century, with politicisation of the national movement, the idea of Vilnius as not only historical but also of the future – modern – capital of Lithuania became established.

Motives of choice

It is difﬁ cult to agree with Lithuanian historian Egidijus Motieka’s statement that the problem of the modern Lithuanian capital was barely discussed in Lithuanian Nation- alism.28After the 1905 Revolution, discussions were held between Smetona, one of the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement, and the supporters of the Catholic current, on the centre of Lithuanian Lithuania29; besides, debates occasionally became heated with the politicians representing other nations. Both in the above-mentioned

27 MOTIEKA. 28 Ibidem, p. 87. 29 This discussion will be considered in the following subsection.

11 discussions and on other occasions, the leaders of Lithuanian Nationalism formulated the motives for having Vilnius as the capital of the modern Lithuanian nation state. The Lithuanians’ main motive in declaring Vilnius the capital of Lithuania was associated with the aspiration to substantiate the historical link between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) and modern Lithuania. It becomes especially relevant when the goal of political autonomy and that of a future nation state was formulated. Vilnius was the “cradle of Lithuania”, the seat of the Grand Dukes whose name the golden age of the capital is associated with.30 Lithuanians could proclaim themselves to be a historic nation only by tying themselves to the GDL, with Vilnius being its most obvious material “witness”:

in ancient times it was the pillar of Lithuania and the Lithuanian nation. It was there that the ancient Lithuanian state gained strength and became ﬁ rmly established. It is because of the memories of our glorious past that Vilnius is so dear to us. Every monument of these ancients times, every hill, every valley reminds us sadly of those who were there, of those who defended us against the German crusaders and against other enemies. We can hardly ﬁ nd a Lithuanian who, having climbed Castle Hill, would look coldly at its ruins, the hills surrounded with pine-trees, the meandering Neris [river] and the rapid Vileika [river] celebrated by Mickevičius .31

The 5th Station of the Cross “Near the Kedronas Rivulet”. About 1896. NML

30 Už ką mes lenkams turime būti dēkingi arba nedēkingi? [What Should We be Grateful or Ungrateful to the Poles For?), in: Varpas 1 (January 1892), p. 3. Also see: K.L.: Revoliucijos metai Lietuvoje [The Years of Revolution in Lithuania], in: Varpas 11-12 (1905), p. 111. Similar argumentation was presented in the Latvian newspaper Dzimtenes Vėstnesis [Herald of the Homeland]. The important thing to us is that the publication was reprinted in the Lith- uanian newspaper Rygos garsas: -BA-: Vilnius, kaipo lietuvių tautos centras [Vilnius as the Centre of the Lithuanian Nation], in: Rygos garsas from 02(15).07.1910. 31 ANTANAS SMETONA: Vilnius – Lietuvos širdis [Vilnius is the Heart of Lithuania], in: Vilties Kvieslys, 1907. Mickevičius – a famous poet of the ﬁ rst half of the 19th c. Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855).

12 Chapel of the Last Supper at Vilnius Kalvarija. Around 1900. NML

Therefore, the above-mentioned Smetona wrote, “due to its past and present Vilnius must not be for us like a gnawed bone that has no value in the eyes of the Lithua- nians.”32 The leaders of Lithuanian society always strongly felt the necessity to proclaim themselves a historic nation in their most important confrontation, i.e., with the Poles, a part of which, especially the conservative ones and the national democrats, traced the Lithuanian National Novement exclusively to “the Samogitian folk.”33 At the same time Vilnius, the Gates of Dawn and Cathedral in particular, as well as the Stations of the Cross in Verkiai that were located near the city, were the most important religious symbols of Catholics in the country.34 Each year thousands of pilgrims, including Lithuanians35, would gather there. The pilgrims arriving in Vilnius from different places around Lithuania visited not only these religious objects, but also historically-signiﬁ cant places. Thus the pilgrimages served as a means of nationalising the masses. For example, Gediminas Tower “reminded” the pilgrims who arrived from

32 IDEM: Kur Lietuvos centras? [Where is the Centre of Lithuania?], in: Viltis from 03(16).12.1910. 33 For more about the attitude of the Poles to the Lithuanians see: BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani. 34 ANTANAS SMETONA: Vilnius – Lietuvos širdis [Vilnius is the Heart of Lithuania], in: Vilties Kvieslys, 1907. 35 Priest Juozapas Ambraziejus offered to the Lithuanians to acquire Verkiai so that the pilgrims would have a place to stay; moreover, “that historic and magic place of hoary antiquity” would then not get into the hands of the Jews or Poles: AMBRAZIEJUS.

13 Panevėžys of “how the Lithuanians created a large and independent state.”36 No matter where the Lithuanian national leaders had decided to establish the capital, the role of Vilnius as a religious centre would not have disappeared. From the practical point of view, this was dangerous because, as the leaders of Lithuanian Nationalism saw it, the Lithuanian pilgrims would have come under the infl uence of Polish priests. Meanwhile, as the city was already in a symbolic way a religious centre in this case, it made it easier to convert it into a different kind of centre, that being a centre for the Lithuanian nation. However, Vilnius was important for Lithuanian Nationalism not only for symbolic, but also for rather pragmatic reasons. The same Smetona argued that Vilnius was the largest city of the Northwestern Territory.37 It was “the largest political, scientifi c, artis- tic, educational, commercial and industrial centre”. It was there that a university could be expected to be founded.38 As Mykolas Römeris (Michał Römer), a famous political activist in Lithuania at the beginning of the 20th century and one of the leaders of the krajowcy movement, wrote in 1906 that those who ruled Vilnius controlled the entire country.39 This argument of the “capital” of the country was signifi cant from several aspects. Firstly, due to the abundance of different institutions there, it was easier for Lithuanians to fi nd a job, fi rst and foremost for the intelligentsia. Secondly, the primary resources of the country were concentrated there, and as a result it was necessary to be closer to them. In other words, this was the centre of power and getting established there also meant having an impact on the development of the country. Another pragmatic reason for the Lithuanians to “return” to Vilnius was related to the fact that from the point of view of Lithuanian Nationalism there were many Lithuanians in the Vilnius province that had lost their Lithuanian identity, especially in its southern and eastern parts. To refuse Vilnius as a (potential) Lithuanian outpost was the same as to give up the aspiration of “returning” those Lithuanians “back to the Lithuanian nation.”40 This kind of explanation of the motives involved could satisfy a researcher who supports the constructivist paradigm in nationalism studies, whereas an ethno-symbol- ist would additionally ask whether it was not so that Vilnius had become a signifi cant symbolic fi gure in Lithuanian culture before Aušra was published. There are not many sources that can confi rm this statement, but the following testimony of Lithuanian So- cial Democrat Kipras Bielinis at least partly confi rms this hypothesis:

36 STAKAUSKAS, pp. 75-76. 37 The Northwestern Territory included six provinces: Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodno, Minsk, Vitebsk, Mogiliov. 38 ANTANAS SMETONA: Vilnius – Lietuvos širdis [Vilnius is the Heart of Lithuania], in: Vilties Kvieslys, 1907; IDEM: Kur Lietuvos centras? [Where is the Centre of Lithuania?], in: Viltis from 03(16).12.1910. Also see: K.L.: Revoliucijos metai Lietuvoje [The Revolution Years in Lithuania], in: Varpas 11-12 (1905), p. 111. 39 RÖMER, Stosunki, p. 9. 40 “The entire life of the Lithuanians of Vilnius province depends on the establishment of the Lithuanians in Vilnius”, Smetona wrote: ANTANAS SMETONA: Kur Lietuvos centras? [Where is the Centre of Lithuania?], in: Viltis from 03(16).12.1910.

14 Vilnius has entered my consciousness as a city of fairy tales. How did it occur in my imagina- tion like that? It is true, I have heard a lot about the city from my father’s vivid stories; I have read legends about Lizdeika and the valley of the Sacred Horn. [...] The images of the song sung about Vilnius have not faded in my memory since my childhood days. [...] The people of our land had no economic relations with Vilnius but the name of that city was familiar from the songs and stories and it was steeped in legends there.41

If we believe Jonas Basanavičius, out of all the Lithuanian topographical names that exist, it is only the name of Vilnius that is found in the songs of different regions of Lithuania, and it is found quite often.42 Furthermore, the aušrininkai (a name referring to the publishers of Aušra) did not start constructing a new Lithuanian world in an empty space. Their fascination with the works of mid-19th century patriots of Lithuania like Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Adam Honory Kirkor and Theodor Narbutt who wrote in Polish in the middle of the 19th century is well known.43 Vilnius, the historical capital of the country, played an important role in the image of Lithuania (though different from that of the one built up by modern Lithuanian nationalists) that they promoted. Despite these arguments for choosing Vilnius as the future capital of Lithuania and the centre of the Lithuanian National Movement, there were also activists of Lithuanian Nationalism who promoted the idea of an alternative centre of the national movement.

Kaunas as an alternative centre of the Lithuanian National Movement

It has already been mentioned in this Chapter that Kaunas, as a worthy alternative, was referred to alongside Vilnius as a potential centre of the Lithuanian movement in Aušra.44 For a short time this discussion became even ﬁ ercer after the suppression of the 1905 Revolution. Biržiška who was an eyewitness to these debates wrote many years later the following: “[...] other residents of Kaunas were serious when they raised the issue of turning Kaunas into the national centre of Lithuanians for all of Lithuania.”45 In 1907, an article appeared in the Catholic newspaper Nedėldienio skaitymas (Reading for the Day of Rest) announcing that Kaunas, rather than Vilnius, was the

41 BIELINIS, Penktieji metai, p. 18. According to a legend, Lizdeika was a pagan priest who explained Grand Duke Gediminas’s prophetic dream about an iron wolf howling on a hill to the grand duke. Lizdeika explained to Gediminas that he must build a castle on that hill, and that was a beginning of Vilnius. 42 JONAS B. BIRŠTONAS [JONAS BASANAVIČIUS], p. 40. 43 At the end of the 19th century, one of the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement Petras Vileišis published a book by ADAM HONORY KIRKOR entitled Kapai didziu kunigai- kščių ir karalių Vilniuje [Graves of Grand Dukes and Kings in Vilnius], Tilžė 1898. 44 Some aspects of the “Kaunas Idea” have already been mentioned in historical literature: GUDAITIS, p. 16; ALEKSANDRAVIČIUS, p. 162. 45 BIRŽIŠKA, Lietuvių, p. 74.

15 “heart-centre” of Lithuania.46 The signiﬁ cance of Kaunas as an important Lithuanian centre of Lithuania in the Lithuanian discourse at the beginning of the 20th century is also illustrated by some maps published by Lithuanians Jadvyga Juškytė and V. Ver- bickis in which two cities – Vilnius and Kaunas – were singled out by writing their names in larger letters and denoted with larger dots in the territory of that imaginary Lithuania,47 which seemed to bear witness to their equal status. Though the idea of Kaunas as the most important centre for Lithuanians is not often found in sources at the beginning of the 20th century, this was by no means a mere afterthought of one or another Lithuanian public ﬁ gure. One of the most important arguments of the supporters of the “Kaunas idea” was related to the fact that large groups of priests who were taking an active part in the Lithuanian National Movement were concentrated in Kaunas. Besides, the leaders of the Samogitian (Telšiai) Diocese were favourably disposed towards this movement.48 The strongest Catholic-oriented Lithuanian societies operated in the Kaunas province.49 It was in Kaunas that the magazine Draugija (Society), intended for to the intelligentsia, was published. At the beginning of the 20th century, some Lithuanian activists considered the possibility to establish a Science Lovers’ Society in Kaunas.50 It was no coincidence that the meeting of the priests of the Batakiai deanery held in January 1906 offered to found the Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party whose “central committee” was to be located in Kaunas.51 There were also plans to establish a higher educational institution for Catholic priests in Kaunas. Kazimieras Prapuolenis , who was one of the leaders of the Catholic trend, wrote the following to Basanavičius in 1907: “As concerns the establishment of a Catholic academy for Lithuanians, to my mind as long as we have no purely Lithuanian bishops, all of this will remain just talk. While still in St. Petersburg I often talked there, where you were52 about the Polonisation of our priests at the Academy of St. Petersburg, about the importance for us to have our own academy, we even talked about its establishment in Kaunas [...]”.53 Nonetheless, alongside the particular interests of one of the currents of the Lithuanian National Movement (that of the Christian Democrats), the “Kaunas idea” was based on certain arguments that responded to the general needs of Lithuanian Nationalism.

46 SENELYS LIETUVYS [JONAS ULICKAS?]: Kur dabartinės Lietuvos centras: Kaune ar Vilniuj? [Where is the Centre of Present-day Lithuania: in Kaunas or in Vilnius?], in: Nedėldienio skaitymas from 27.11.1907 (08.12.1907), pp. 19-20. 47 [JUŠKYTĖ]; PETRONIS, pp. 249, 262. 48 SENELIS LIETUVIS [JONAS ULICKAS?]: Kaunas ir Vilnius [Kaunas and Vilnius], in: Nedėldie- nio skaitymas 44 (1907), pp. 345-346. 49 GAIDYS, Lietuvių, pp. 254-316; LAUKAITYTĖ, pp. 220-253. 50 DAMBRAUSKAS, Iš Kauno, p. 42. 51 Batakių, p. 451. 52 He most probably has in mind the Department of Religious Affairs of Foreign Faiths of the Ministry of the Interior. 53 KAZIMIERAS PRAPUOLENIS’ letter of 11(24).08.1907 to Jonas Basanavičius, in: LLTI RS, f. 2, b. 1299, l. 22.

16 Giving priority to Kaunas rather than Vilnius had a certain argument that followed the logic of ethno-linguistic nationalism. As far back as 1902, one of the promoters of the “Kaunas idea”, Aleksandras Dambrauskas (Adomas Jakštas), formulated clear principles of the Lithuanian national idea: Lithuania of the time was ethnographic, and covered ﬁ rst and foremost the Kaunas province, as well as the respective parts of the Suvalki, Vilnius, Grodno and Courland provinces, though he reduced the ethnographic criterion down to ethno-linguistic ones only, saying “present-day Lithuania is where the Lithuanian language is heard spoken by the Lithuanian people.”54 For a city to become “the heart of the whole nation” it is necessary that it “should stand in the middle of the nation, that it should be inhabited by countrymen on all sides, it has to be surrounded by purely Lithuanian villages and farmsteads.”55 At that time it was Kaunas that was in the centre of the ethnographic Lithuania, the province where Lithuanian Nationalism received the greatest support.56 Still before the 1905 Revolution, a lawyer named Ka- zimieras Samajauskas wrote in his letter to Dambrauskas-Jakštas the following: “It is necessary to prepare a capital for the Sixth State, which could be Kaunas as the beating heart of Lithuania, whose road-arteries spread out to all its edges. Vilnius, with its de- serted districts and historical traditions looks like a nobleman who has lost his lands, found himself in a foreign country and boasts only of his coats-of-arms.”57 Furthermore, Kaunas is not only the ethnographic centre of Lithuania, but it was held to be more

54 [ALEKSANDRAS DAMBRAUSKAS], Głos, p. 18. 55 [JONAS ULICKAS?]: Kur dabartinės Lietuvos centras: Kaune ar Vilniuj? [Where is the Cen- tre of Present-day Lithuania: in Kaunas or in Vilnius?], in: Nedėldienio skaitymas from 27.11.1907 (08.12.1907), p. 19. 56 In the fi rst half of 1905 the number of subscribers to the fi rst Lithuanian daily in the Vilnius province (310) was smaller than that in Latvia (399), and it lagged behind the number of subscribers in the Kaunas province nearly tenfold (2990): ANIČAS, Petras Vileišis, p. 171. There were 100 subscribers in Vilnius, whereas in St. Petersburg this fi gure stood at 139: MYKO- LAS BIRŽIŠKA: “Vilniaus Žinių” prasiplatinimas per pirmąjį pusmetį 1905 metų [A Circula- tion in Vilniaus Žinios During the First Half of 1905], in: Vilniaus žinios from 23.07.1908 (05.08.1908) and 24.07.1908 (06.08.1908). 57 Cited according to: GUDAITIS, pp. 16-17. This idea can be found in Povilas Januševičius’s letters written to the afore-mentioned Dambrauskas-Jakštas: “I have always been and am convinced that we shall have greater success either with the newspaper or with the book in Kaunas more than in Vilnius. Let Vilnius be for the intelligentsia of these days and Kaunas for the Christian intelligentsia. Lithuanians can be found everywhere in Kaunas, whereas in Vilnius one has to search for them. Why should we distance ourselves from the people? Kaunas, as you know, is inhabited by the Lithuanians on all four sides, and Vilnius – only on one or two sides at most. It is not enough that Vilnius is a historical city of Lithuania, especially today, when it is necessary to be closer to the people. If everything is moved to Vilnius, who will Kaunas belong to? The Jews? Or the Belarusians, or the Poles? No, to my mind, everything is to be organised in Kaunas – rooms are cheaper here, there are some societies here already, there is the greatest number of Lithuanians here and we shall meet with almost no opposition here. And in Vilnius, – oh, and then we shall meet ‘forma dignitas’ from the smallest to the biggest at every step.”: cited according to: ŽALTAUSKAITĖ, pp. 2-3.

17 Lithuanian.58 Dambrauskas-Jakštas’ opinion about Vilnius is more categorical: “Only a miracle could Lithuanianise Vilnius. I do not believe in that miracle. Let’s pray to God that a considerable Lithuanian colony forms in Vilnius.”59 The editors of the weekly Nedėldienio skaitymas commented on it in a similar way: “we are not against Vilnius becoming the centre of Lithuania at all. On the contrary, we desire it very much. But upon seeing its present Polonisation, we seriously doubt as to whether a handful of residents of Vilnius will ever manage to dePolonise Vilnius at least to some degree so that it could actually be called a city of Lithuania [...]”.60 The fact that the residents of Vilnius have become Polonised is recorded in ﬁ ction too. In Aleksandras Fromas-Gužutis’s play, a hundred-year-old man by the name of Anžuolis foretells the future of the city to Gediminas, who placed the corner stone of the Vilnius castle, in the following manner:

Vilnius is going to be famous and happy for many years to come, but after Lithuania becomes joined in familial ties with another powerful nation, which will strangle his sister in his brotherly embrace. Then Lithuania will lose its independence, Vilnius will no longer be its capital, and the inhabitants, having adopted the foreign ways and faith, will renounce their

58 Data of the abovementioned census of 1897 suggest that a little more than four thousand (4092) Lithuanians lived in Kaunas which at that time had the population of 71 thousand, i.e. Lithuanians made up almost 6 per cent of the citizens. The largest group based on the criterion of the mother-tongue spoke Yiddish (25,052), then – Russophones (18,308); the number of Germans was close to that of Lithuanians (3340). 59 DAMBRAUSKAS, Iš Kauno, p. 55. In the 1910s A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas was somewhat more optimistic about Vilnius: “The process of Polonisation will continue according to the law of inertia for some 10-20 years to come. During the course of this entire period the Lithuanians will not be able to show any obvious results of their national strengthening. [...] In the long run we shall achieve balance, and then there will a diversion in the opposite direction of the said process. Hence, there is no need for us, Lithuanians, to get excited and desire to secure victory immediately, today. Fast work is good for nothing. We have to learn to wait. Let us remember that there is nothing eternal in this world. The present-day Polish prelates are not going to live in Vilnius forever either” (spaced out by the author – D.M., D.S.)’: A. JAKŠTAS [ALEKSANDRAS DAMBRAUSKAS]: Lenkų ir rusų spauda apie Lietuvą [The Polish and Lithuanian Press about Lithuania], in: Draugija 55-56 (July-August 1911), p. 309. In 1898, the clergy-oriented Tėvynės sargas wrote in a similar way: “The greatest anxiety of the Russians is, ﬁ rst and foremost, to Russify Lithuanian cities; the largest ones: Kaunas and Vilnius have already been Russiﬁ ed. Kaunas might be revived, we have some freedom there but Vilnius will never be revitalised”: Spaudos dalykuose [Press Matters], in: Tėvynės sargas 9 (September 1898), p. 36. 60 The editors’ note under the article: SENELYS LIETUVYS [JONAS ULICKAS?]: Kur dabartinės Lietuvos centras: Kaune ar Vilniuj? [Where is the Centre of Present-day Lithuania: in Kau- nas or in Vilnius?], in: Nedėldienio skaitymas from 27.11.1907 (08.12.1907), p. 20. This idea was also expressed very clearly in this article: “As for the city itself [Vilnius – D. M. and D.S.], there is also only a handful, one can say, of Lithuanians there. Therefore one cannot hear Lithuanian spoken either near the churches, or in the market, nor in the streets, with the exception of the Church of St Nicholas where not many people gather on holy days either. In this matter Vilnius is neither superior nor inferior to St. Petersburg, Liepāja, Riga and other Russian towns where there are Lithuanian colonies”: ibidem.

18 language and will forget it – they will not understand the language of their brothers – the Lithuanians!61

In the meanwhile Kaunas, especially from the beginning of the 20th century, was undoubtedly a Lithuanian city for the part of the Lithuanian activists, namely those of the Catholic current:

During fairs, on holy days or on market days nearly only Lithuanians from the Kaunas, Su- valki and Vilnius provinces come here; one can hardly hear any other language spoken here; if somebody comes here from another place, the people living in the neighbourhood who come here make them learn Lithuanian. Therefore a Pole, a Russian and a Jew understand and speak Lithuanian. As regards the residents of the city, there are many of them too. Due to that Masses are celebrated in Lithuanian in all churches with the exception of the Seminary and the Benedictine churches; Lithuanian is heard spoken in the streets, in the markets and in other places.62

It is true, the inﬂ uence of Lithuanians in Kaunas, especially until the 1905 Revolu- tion, was not so obvious to everybody, even to the Catholic current.63 Sometimes it was noted in the liberal press that Kaunas was a somewhat more Lithuanian city64, in other cases it was seen as a Russian-Polish city.65

61 FROMAS, Gedimino, p. 52. 62 SENELYS LIETUVYS [JONAS ULICKAS?]: Kur dabartinės Lietuvos centras: Kaune ar Vilniuj? [Where is the Centre of Present-day Lithuania: in Kaunas or in Vilnius?], in: Nedėldienio skaitymas from 27.11.1907 (08.12.1907), p. 20. Similarly: S. TIJŪNAITIS: Kaunas, in: Šaltinis from 16(29).08.1911, no. 34, p. 405. 63 “One feels sick at heart when he goes to Kaunas now: wherever he looks he sees foreign people everywhere, wherever he listens he hears a foreign language spoken, as though he were in the heart of Russia, whereas Kaunas is the heart of Lithuania, the oldest castle of Lithuania. Where have the Lithuanians who defended Kaunas against the Crusaders and managed to hold it in their hands until the Russians, who did not stealthily seize it, disappeared! Now the Russians feel at home in Kaunas. Signs in Russian are put up everywhere, the streets are full of soldiers, Jews and everybody speaks Russian”: Dr., Kaunas, in: Tėvy- nės sargas 9-10 (September-October 1903), pp. 50-51. 64 ŽEMKALNIS: Gromatos isz kelionės [Letters from a Journey], in: Varpas 9 (Setember 1892), p. 133. 65 Kaunas, Varpas 2 (February 1892), p. 29; Laiškas iš kelionės duonos jieškotojo [A Letter of a Seeker for Bread from a Journey], in: Varpas 4 (April 1893), p. 61. Mykolas Römeris (Michał Römer), one of the leaders of the krajowcy movement who sought to recreate a modern version of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, accentuated the Russian-Polish character of Kaunas before the First World War: “earlier, I am speaking about the pre-war years, Lith- uanian was not more widespread than in Vilnius, or at least it did not manifest itself outside of it. The Russians put a ban on the language and on all external expressions in Kaunas. The city and the ﬁ rst-class fortress of the province teemed with Russians and the Jews. Moreo- ver, Polish prevailed among the native Christians. Lithuanian and everything that had some Lithuanian features, hid itself like Cinderella – in a dark corner, at the grey end”: the entry

19 Having discussed the argumentation of the supporters of the “Kaunas idea”, it is necessary to try to elucidate upon the causes of its origin. One of them is obvious. The representatives of the Catholic current propagated the “Kaunas idea” because in this city the organisations of this current prevailed after the 1905 Revolution, so by turning it into the centre of the Lithuanian National Movement they could hope to become fi rmly entrenched in the national movement. The origin of this idea, however, was encouraged by another but no less signifi cant cause. Both at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries the Catholic current was consistently focused on their work in the cultural sphere and underlined that Lithuanians did not intend to secede from the Russian Empire and to create an independent nation state.66 This declaration of political loyalty to the integrity of the Romanov Empire sometimes, of course, could have been determined by a certain conjuncture, for example, the desire to please the authorities and to receive some concessions for Lithuanian culture from them. We failed to fi nd any projects concerning ideas of national or territorial autonomy here. In other words, the supporters of the “Kaunas idea” did not believe in the possibility of gaining autonomy in the near future, and all the more so of creating an independent nation state, therefore there was no need to become established in the potential centre of such an autonomous area (an independent state). It was due to pragmatic reasons that Kaunas was chosen as an organisational centre for the national movement. Meanwhile the supporters of the “Vilnius idea” planned on the establishment of Lithuania’s autonomy within the ethnographical boundaries in the near future, thus “the occupation” of Vilni- us as the future capital for them was a relevant issue in their agenda. However, one can only think about implementing this kind of goal when one has mobilised the masses.

The introduction of the Vilnius idea as the capital of modern Lithuania to the masses At the turn of the 20th century, the Lithuanian intelligentsia had very limited possibilities to introduce the idea of Vilnius as a capital of modern Lithuania to the masses. Nonetheless, they had an arsenal of certain tools at their disposal. One of the most effective measures was the conscious activity of the Lithuanian intelligentsia which turned Vilnius into an organisational centre for the Lithuanian national movement gradually starting at the end of the 19th century, and particularly from 1905. The Great Seimas of Vilnius and the publication of the ﬁ rst daily in Lithuanian – Vilniaus žinios [Vilnius News] in that city became a very signiﬁ cant event that helped

of 18 April 1919, in: RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis. 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji, p. 169. 66 “Tėvynės sargo” REDAKCIJA [Editorial ofﬁ ce of the Tėvynės sargas]: Nuo Redakcijos. Atviras łaksztas į kunigą Ambroževyczių Vilniuje [From the Editors. An Open Letter to Priest Ambrazevičius], in: Tėvynės sargas 12 (December 1898), p. 47; Lietuvių Krikščionių Demokratų susivienijimo programo projektas [The Draft Program of the Union of the Lith- uanian Christian Democrats], in: Draugija 1 (January 1907), p. 71.

20 to establish the importance of Vilnius in the political life of Lithuanians.67 The role of Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithuania was affi rmed by different political programs that, as has already been mentioned, accentuated (starting in 1905) that it was a historical capital which was to become the centre of an autonomous or independent Lithuania. Here we would like to emphasize that the organized rallying was not only important as the aspiration of Lithuanians to entrench in Vilnius, but also had symbolic signifi cance, i.e. as a means for the Lithuanian intelligentsia to send the message to the masses that Vilnius was the centre of Lithuanians’ social activities. The idea of Vilnius as a historical or modern political capital or a religious centre was introduced in geography textbooks68, in descriptions of pilgrimages69, in poetry70, and in works of art71. Special mention must be made of the poem Vilnius by Maironis (the pseudonym of Jonas Mačiulis) in which not only the lost grandeur of Vilnius is glorifi ed but the hope of rebirth is expressed: “Times are already changing: angry times press us/different altogether/for Lithuania our Motherland!“ First published in the illegal Catholic newspaper Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga [Review of the Samogitia and Lithuania] in 1892 it had the subtitle Naktis [The Night]; in the version of 1905 – Nak- ties laike [At Night], and in 1913, the subtitle smells of optimism already: Prieš aušrą [Before Dawn]”.72 Maironis’ poem Lietuva [Lithuania] shows Vilnius as the centre of Catholism (“it shoots high in the crosses of the churches) and as a symbol of historical continuity (“dear to the Lithuanians since times of old”).73 Placing correspondence from different localities of Lithuania in the press also served as a means of establishing Vilnius as the most important city for Lithuanians. Some newspapers (Vilniaus žinios, Lietuvos žinios [Lithuania’s News], Rygos garsas [The Voice of Riga], Viltis [Hope] and others) most often presented the news from Vil-

67 The signifi cance of these events for disseminating the idea of Vilnius as the centre of modern Lithuania drew the attention of Paulius Subačius, who commented that: “it was not histori- ographers or poets but, fi rst of all, the legal newspaper Vilniaus žinios, and the Vilnius Great Seimas in particular that implanted the idea of Vilnius as the centre of a new Lithuania in [Lithuanian] self-awareness”: SUBAČIUS, p. 157. 68 NERIS [PETRAS VILEIŠIS], pp. 50-51; GABRYS, pp. 64-68. 69 P. Ž ELIONIŪTĖ: Iš kelionės Vilniun [From a Journey to Vilnius], in: Šaltinis from 29.05.1912 (11.06.1912), no. 23, pp. 365-366. 70 VYTURYS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS]: Kelionė Vilniun [A Journey to Vilnius], in Šaltinis from 09(22).10.1912, no. 42, p. 661. 71 A carving by Petras Rimša was displayed at the fi rst exhibition of Lithuanian art held in Vilnius, which represented Gediminas Hill and a part of the city: Lietuvos ūkininkas from 20.02.1908 (04.03.1908), no. 8, p. 111. 72 MAIRONIS [JONAS MAČIULIS]: Vilnius. Naktis. [Vilnius. The Night], in: Żemajczių ir Lietu- wos apżvałga from 15.02.1892, no. 4, p. 27; MAIRONIS [JONAS MAČIULIS], Raštai, vol. 1, pp. 173, 291-292; SUBAČIUS, p. 157; SPEIČYTĖ, p. 117. 73 MAIRONIS [MAČIULIS], Raštai, vol. 2, p. 331. An extract from this work was published in Varpas in 1891, however, Vilniaus siužetas [The Plot of Vilnius] was not included in it: [MAI- RONIS]: Lietuvos gražybe [Beauty of Lithuania], in: Varpas 12 (December 1891), pp. 162- 163. It is not clear who sent this extract to the editorial offi ce; however, it was not the author of the work himself: GIRDZIJAUSKAS, pp. 145-158.

21 The Gate of Dawn. 1912. NML Vilnius Cathedral. Gediminas tower in the background. Around 1903. NML nius ﬁ rst, as though forming a hierarchy of different Lithuanian localities with Vilnius occupying a central place. The central place of Vilnius in this imagined Lithuania was also established by marking the city on maps drawn by Lithuanians. Vilnius was singled out in a special way in some of these maps, though not in all of them. The size of letters and dots differed from those used to mark other cities and towns to show that Vilnius was the largest and most important Lithuanian city. Vilnius was singled out in this way in the maps drawn by Juozas Gabrys-Paršaitis and Smetona .74 The attractiveness of the idea of Vilnius as a capital to the masses had to be strengthened not only by the texts that have just been discussed, but also by certain physical objects in Vilnius that Lithuanians could identify themselves with. Such important religious symbols as the Gates of Dawn and the set of the Stations of the Cross, as well as the Cathedral where the central ﬁ gure of the Lithuanian pantheon Grand Duke Vy- tautas is buried, were important places for all Catholics to visit.75 These buildings were common to all Catholics, therefore Lithuanian activists were not able to accentuate the

74 GABRYS; A. SM. [ANTANAS SMETONA]: Lietuvos etnograﬁ jos ribos [Lithuania’s Ethnographic Boundaries], in: Vairas from 30.11.1914, no. 16, pp. 4-5. 75 VEVERSIS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS]: Vilnius, in: Aušra 10 and 11 (October and November 1884), p. 374.

22 Lithuanian nature of Vilnius. Nonetheless there were attempts by Lithuanians to symbolically appropriate these religious objects. After rumours had spread that the Latin inscription on the Gates of Dawn would be replaced by a Polish one, the Lithuanian press went into action stating that the inscription could be only in Latin or written in the “language of the land”, i.e. in Lithuanian.76 Alongside the already-mentioned buildings of the religious signifi cance, other objects related to the Lithuanian movement were also of importance: the houses where Lithuanian societies and editorial offi ces of newspapers were located, printing houses in which Lithuanian publications were printed, the church of St Nicholas where services in Lithuanian were held, and Vilnius’s Lithuanian School.77 However, Gediminas Castle, the icon of the city, became the most important material symbol for the Lithuanians as for the majority of other town-dwellers and the inhabitants in the country. As an icon of the city, Gediminas Castle become a “deterritorialised” image that was included in different publications and works of art and attracted one’s attention quite easily because it rose above the city so it was clearly visible from different points of the city and different groups of society assigned an important (and often different) historical role to it.78 For example, some issues of the Lithuanian Catholic newspaper Šaltinis [The Source] of 1907 published in Seinai (in the Suwałki province) were decorated with a composition consisting of four elements, three of which were Catholic churches (the Gates of Dawn were at the top, in the middle of the page, next to it, on the right, there was the Cathedral and the Belfry, and at the bottom of the page the Kaunas Catholic Cathedral); the fourth element – in the top left-hand corner – was represented by Gediminas Castle.79 Beginning in 1908, every month in Vilniaus kalendorius (Vilnius Calendar) was illustrated with a photograph of the remains of some castle from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, with the Calendar beginning with Gedimi- nas Castle.80 Right before the First World War, a vignette by Lithuanian artist Petras Rimša representing Gediminas Tower decorated the back of the magazine Vairas [The Steering-Wheel]. Besides, this view was enveloped in ornamental folk carvings and another Lithuanian wayside shrine was represented on the top, thus showing that Gedi- minas Castle belonged to the Lithuanians.81 The Lithuanian Scientifi c Society together with the Lithuanian Art Society even planned to found a joint museum in the tower of Gediminas Castle.82 This icon of the city received special attention in 1911-1912 after the authorities of the city of Vilnius adopted the resolution to approve a programme for water supply and

76 Protestas! [Protest!], in Vilniaus žinios from 10(23).09.1905, no. 220; SENIS LIZDEIKA: Laiškas į “V.Ž.” Redakciją [A letter to the Editorial Ofﬁ ce of the Vilniaus Žinios], in: Vil- niaus žinios from 11(24).09.1905, no. 221. 77 Vilnius, in: Vilniaus kalendorius 1913, pp. 127-128. 78 LAUČKAITĖ, pp. 225-231. 79 See e.g., Šaltinis from 18 June 1907. 80 Vilniaus kalendorius 1908 metams; and also calendars of the later years. 81 LAUČKAITĖ, p. 229. 82 The Minutes of the sitting of the Board of the Lithuanian Scientiﬁ c Society of 26 August 1911, in: LLTI RS, f. 22, b. 3, l. 3.

23 sewage works in the city, according to which one of the water reservoirs was to be in- stalled on the Hill of Gediminas Castle. The indignation of the public and scientists that resulted put a stop to this project. Without going deep into the concrete actions taken by the Lithuanian Scientifi c Society (Lietuvių mokslo draugija)83, the Society of Friends of Science in Vilnius (Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie)84, which chiefl y united the Poles in Lithuania, we shall draw attention to what arguments the Lithuanian public fi gures gave to prove the signifi cance of the castle.85 First of all, attention should be drawn to the attempts to nationalise this historical monument, i.e., make it the property of Lithuanians. Almost every protest was begun with the following words “Being a Lithuanian” or “I, as a Lithuanian”86; elsewhere it was indicated that it was a monument of the Lithuanian nation. Lietuvos žinios announced it as “the national shrine“,87 and several individuals who represented themselves as self-educated persons even stated the following: “The Castle Hill to us, Lith- uanians, is the same as Mecca to the Muslims!“88 One of the protests ran as follows: “That Hill is dear to us as a monument of Lithuania’s past” therefore “he who dares to

83 The Board of the Lithuanian Scientifi c Society considered this issue many times: on 2, 12, and 17 January, on 6 and18 February, and on 3 and 22 March 1911, in: LLTI RS, f. 22, b. 3, l. 14, 16, 17, 19-23. 84 STALIŪNAS, Die Teilung, pp. 147-166. 85 The fi le Raštai, protestai ir pan. sąryšyje su Vilniaus miesto valdybos nutarimu panaudo- ti Pilies kalną knalizacijos tikslams [Offi cial Letters, Protests, etc. Related to the Resolu- tion of the Vilnius City Council on the Use of the Castle Hill for Sewage Purposes], in: LLTI RS, f. 22, b. 45; Del Pilies kalno [Regarding Castle Hill], in: Viltis from 19.02.1912 (03.03.1912), no. 22; Del negerbimo senobės liekanų [Regarding the Disrespect for Anti- quity Relics], in: Lietuvos žinios from 24.12.1911 (06.01.1912), no. 150; DONATAS MALIN- AUSKIS: Vilniaus Pilies Kalnui apsaugoti [To Protect Vilnius Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 31.12.1911 (13.01.1912), no. 151; Ar privalome tylėti? [Do we Have to be Silent?], in: Lietuvos žinios from 28.01.1912 (10.02.1912), no. 12; DONATAS MALINAUSKAS: Deliai Vilniaus Pilies kalno apgynimo [Regarding Protection of Vilnius Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 14(27).02.1912, no. 19; Del Pilies Kalno [Regarding the Castle Hill], in: Lietu- vos žinios from 27.02.1912 (07.03.1912), no. 23; Delei Pilies Kalno protestai [Protests about the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 13(26).03.1912, no. 31; Pilies Kalno reikaluose [In the Matters of the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 23.03.1912 (07.04.1912), no. 35; Protestas [The Protest], in: Lietuvos žinios from 05(18).04.1912, no. 40; Protestas [The Pro- test], in: Lietuvos žinios from 10(23).04.1912, no. 42; Protestas [The Protest], in: Lietuvos žinios from 24.04.1912 (07.05.1912), no. 48; Protestas [The Protest], in: Lietuvos žinios from 26.04.1912 (09.05.1912), no. 49; Protestas [The Protest], in: Lietuvos žinios from 17(30).05.1912, no. 57; Protestai [The Protests], in: Lietuvos žinios from 07(20).06.1912, no. 66; A. Bulotos kalba delei Vilniaus Pilies kalno [A. Bulota’ Speech Regarding the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 14(27).06.1912, no. 69. 86 Protests of teachers M. Burdulis and V. Kubilskis sent to the Lithuanian Scientifi c Society, in: LLTI RS, f. 22, b. 45. 87 [Editorial]: Ar privalome tylėti? [Do we Have to be Silent?], in: Lietuvos žinios from 28.01.1912 (10.02.1912), no. 12. 88 Delei Pilies Kalno protestai [Protests Regarding the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 13(26).03.1912, no. 31.

24 spoil that Castle Hill will do harm not only to our past but also to our present and our future [...].”89 Sometimes it was specifi ed unambiguously that this historical monument did not belong to the Poles: “Try to imagine what the Poles would say if somebody thought of spoiling their Wawel?”90 A battle for preserving this historical monument is placed into a broader context of the confl ict between Lithuanians and Poles: the Vilnius city government is identifi ed by Lithuanians with the Poles91 who had designs on taking over this historical heritage that was so dear to Lithuanians. Sometimes, as, for example, in the speech of the left- winged Lithuanian politician Andrius Bulota delivered at the Russian State Duma, a battle for Gediminas Hill was included in a confl ict over which nation Vilnius should belong to: “The Poles constitute the majority in the City Council of Vilnius, and the local Poles constantly state in their newspapers that Vilnius is a Polish city.”92 Here it is indirectly implied that by neglecting a major historical monument of Vilnius and Lithuania, the Vilnius city government (understood to be the Poles) is proving that they cannot make claims to the status as the leader of the city. Refl ections of a broader Lithuanian-Polish confl ict in this story can be seen in the selection of certain rhetorical fi gures. Sometime the protests of Lithuanians refer to the supporters of this project, such as the Vilnius city government or the Poles, as barbarians, while the creation of a reservoir is tied to tactlessness and lack of cultivated tastes. Hence, the Lithuanian protesters did not only criticise the specifi c decision of the authorities of the city, but also indirectly presented counter-arguments concerning the statements often encountered in Polish discourse of the time as though everything that is associated with culture and civilisation in Lithuania had been brought there by the Poles. In other words, by taking this step, it was as if the Poles themselves denied their statements about their cultural and civilising mission in Lithuania. Protests by Lithuanians devoted most of their attention to the historical period of the site before the establishment of the castle. It was shown that a settlement existed where Vilnius is today as far back as the 10th century, and that there was already a religious centre for Lithuanians there in the 12th and 13th century, therefore it is likely that at that time the hill was already surrounded by fortifi cations and re-enforced. The accen- tuation of this period in the protests by Lithuanians that can be tied to the circumstance that the creation of a water supply reservoir posed a danger fi rst and foremost to the archaeological layers within and under the hill, rather than to the castle ruins. This is why this period is accentuated, as relics from this period could have been hidden in the ground. However, this period can be interpreted as the most Lithuanian in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Though the Poles mention in their protests that the castle was built by Gediminas and even mention the fact that the site was signifi cant as far back as the pagan times, the events associated with that castle that took place dur-

89 Protestas [Protest], in: Lietuvos žinios from 11(24).02.1912, no. 18. 90 Ar privalome tylėti? [Do We Have to be Silent?], in: Lietuvos žinios from 28.01.1912 (10.02.1912), no. 12. 91 Apie pilies kalną [About the Castle Hill], in: Vienybė lietuvininkų 17 (1912). 92 A. Bulotos kalba delei Vilniaus Pilies kalno [A. Bulota’ Speech Regarding the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 14(27).06.1912, no. 69.

25 ing later centuries are described more often.93 Though at that time the Poles, national democrats in particular, popularised the theory about tens of thousands of Poles who in the times of Gediminas at the beginning of the 14th century resided in Lithuania, and with whom the beginning of civilisation in Lithuania is associated,94 it was difﬁ cult to substantiate the impact of the Poles and Polishness during that period and make Gedi- minas a hero of the Poles, which they did not even try to do. Hence, it is clear that there was no need for the Poles to relate that historical monument exclusively to the name of Gediminas. In Polish discourse, this place was called differently than in the Lithuanian tradition, and referred to as Góra zamkowa [Castle Hill].95 This history of defending Gediminas Castle shows that the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement declared themselves to be successors of Grand Duke Gediminas and at the same time of the rights of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: “the real heirs to the ancient Castle Hill have risen from their graves already [...].”96 Declaring Vilnius “the capital of Gediminas”97, i. e. the capital founded by a Lithuanian Duke, also announced the news that the city belonged to the Lithuanians. Publications appeared in the press that discussed the Lithuanians’ intent to build a monument to Gediminas in the city of Vilnius.98 That link between medieval and modern Lithuania is seen in the poem Pilies kalnas Vilniuje [The Castle Hill in Vilnius] written by the above-mentioned Davainis-Silvestraitis on another occasion. Though the title of the poem contains the Polish name of the monument under discussion, and the title itself is written in Polish (Zamkowa gora w Wilnie), the poem itself is Lithuanian – not only in the sense that it is written in Lithuanian but also in the message it conveys. A bridge is built between “the grand glory” that spread from Grand Duke Gediminas both to the north and the east and the present time when a great fuss was made in “the city of Gediminas” about which all the Lithuanians knew – Vilniaus žinios began being published.”99 One can see from the letters received by the Lithuanian Scientiﬁ c Society, which had become an institution coordinating protests from Lithuanians, that the importance

93 W. ZAHORSKI: Z Zamkowej góry [From the Castle Hill], in: Dodatek do no. 113. Kurjera Litewskiego [Supplement no. 113 to Lithuanian Messenger]. 94 ZIEMIANIN: O uzasadnienie historyczne (List do redakcji) [About Historical Argumentation (A Letter to the Editors)], in: Dziennik Wileński 159 (1907); OBST, pp. 8-9, 29. 95 The Russian tradition was a Polish translation – Zamkovaia gora [Castle Hill]. It is true, in 1911-1912, this object was most often referred to as Castle Hill in the protests by Lithuani- ans. However, it should be remembered that the majority of texts were protests addressed to different non-Lithuanian organisations. Most likely it was for this reason that the name of Castle Hill, which was more common in other languages, was chosen. 96 Ar privalome tylėti? [Do We Have to be Silent?], in: Lietuvos žinios from 28.01.1912 (10.02.1912), no. 12. On other occasions too it was remembered that Vilnius was founded by Gediminas: Vilniaus inkurimas [Founding of Vilnius], in: Šaltinis from 15(28).12.1909, no. 51, p. 804. 97 Apie lenkų kalbą, p. 24. 98 LUDWIK ABRAMOWICZ: Wolne głosy w sprawie litewskiej [Free Voices on the Issue of the Lithuanians], in: Kwestya Litewska, p. 48. 99 MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS: Zamkowa gora w Wilnie [The Castle Hill in Vilnius], in: LLTI RS, f. 1, b. 1555.

26 of Gediminas Castle as a historical object of great signiﬁ cance to the nation was clear not only to the nationalising elites but also to the masses: “We, undersigned below, Lithuanians of Panevėžys protest bitterly against tearing down Vilnius Castle and are determined sooner to give up our lives than allow our ancient monuments to be pro- faned. If the City Council wishes, let it torture us to death, we will die willingly but it should not tear what is dear to the entire Nation.”100 A part of the Lithuanians who defended Gediminas Castle most probably had not seen it at all. Trips to Vilnius, which, naturally, could be accessible to the few only, could have played an important function in instilling the image of Vilnius as the centre of Lithuanian Lithuania. As Aleida Assmann wrote, places of memory, and Vilnius could be regarded as such within the context of Lithuanian Nationalism, are very similar to the holy places visiting of which “relates to the spirits of the past.”101 In other words, direct contact with the places that are sacred to nationalists alleviates considerably and strengthens the emotional tie with those objects. This is how physician Jurgis Žilinskas describes his visit to Vilnius at the beginning of the 19th century:

The ruins of Gediminas Castle, every church, every ancient house, tall brick walls and each corner of the street have their own history, which shows beautiful, joyful and ghastly times for Lithuania.102

Having declared Vilnius the (future) capital of modern Lithuania and having started to instil this idea in the minds of the masses, an issue of no less importance was related to its practical implementation. It is there that the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement encountered serious obstacles associated with the ethnic composition of the city’s residents.

The Lithuanian Interpretation of Ethnic Statistics of the City of Vilnius

At the very beginning of the Lithuanian National Movement, optimistic voices were heard from its ranks about the ethnic composition of Vilnius residents that was supposedly favourable to the Lithuanians. In 1884, the afore-mentioned Davainis-Silvestraitis stated the following in Aušra:

Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, has a plethora of memories from our past, which has not been lost for us altogether. Though the prevailing language there is Polish or Jewish, and also Russian, nearly all the Catholics consider themselves to be Lithuanians. Polish-speaking

100 A protest of two Lithuanians sent to the editors of the Lietuvos žinios, in: LLTI RS, f. 22, b. 45 (pages unnumbered). Five peasants from Krekenava thought that the hill “most likely was built by our ancestors by the handful“: Del Pilies Kalno [Regarding the Castle Hill], in: Lietuvos žinios from 23.02.1912 (07.03.1912), no. 23. 101 ASSMANN, p. 337. 102 ŽILINSKAS, p. 51.

27 Catholics are happy that Lithuania is spiritually coming to live and say that Lithuanian is the language of their ancestors.103

These optimistic assessments, however, were soon confronted by a painful reality: according to the fi rst all-imperial census in 1897, as already mentione din this book, the number of people who indicated that Lithuanian was their native language totalled only about 3,000, which accounted for 2.1 per cent of the city’s population.104 It is interesting to know that in late imperial period, there were a number of cities where the number of Lithuanians residing there was much larger: in Riga their number totalled 35,000, in St Petersburg it accounted for 30,000 while in Liepāja this fi gure stood at 15,000.105 The reasons for Lithuanians not moving to Vilnius have already been specifi ed in historiography: the number of large industrial enterprises that had been established in the “capital” of the Northwestern Territory was small, while the smaller of these enterprises managed very well by using the labour of impoverished artisans who were often valued as more skilled and educated than the illiterate peasants.106 Therefore the “labour migration” of Lithuanians went to other cities of the Russian Empire as well as foreign countries. The leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement, however, could not “give up” Vilnius because of the said reasons, therefore it was diffi cult to reconcile themselves with the offi cial statistics. Subsequent data of the national statistics could hardly make the Lithuanians more optimistic either. In 1908, the nationalist publication Viltis [Hope] foretold that the number of people who wanted additional Lithuanian services in Catho- lic churches in Lithuanian in Vilnius would amount to only about 2,100107 and in 1909, according to the data collected by the authorities, Lithuanians accounted for 3.96 per cent of the total population of the city.108 As compared to the census of 1897, the number of Lithuanians almost doubled, however the increase had no signifi cant effect on the proportions of the ethnic composition in the city of Vilnius, which were still not favourable for the Lithuanians. The Lithuanian interpretation declared that offi cial statistics were unreliable because many Lithuanians of Vilnius were not nationally conscious, while others did not

103 VEVERSIS [MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS]: Vilnius, in: Aušra 10 and 11 (October and November 1884), p. 374. In 1895 the Varpas wrote that nearly half the Catholics in Vilnius could speak Lithuanian: Vilnius, in: Varpas 5 (May 1895), p. 91. 104 One of the members of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, Povilas Višinskis, doubted the ob- jectivity of these statistics, and at the same time he expressed hope that after the Lithuanian National Movement strengthened, a large number of the residents of Vilnius would stop feeling ashamed of their “real nationality” and would start to speak Lithuanian: Lietuvos sūnus [Lithuania’s Son] [POVILAS VIŠINSKIS]: Ze spisu jednodniowego (gub. Wilenska) [From the One-day Census (Vilnius province)], in: LLTI RS, f. 1, b. 697, l. 1-2. 105 TRUSKA, Emigracija, p. 79. 106 MERKYS, Razvitie, pp. 368-369. The afore-mentioned Bielinis recorded this problem more than once: BIELINIS, Penktieji metai, p. 213. 107 Vilniaus lietuvių surašymas [Census of Vilnius Lithuanians], in: Viltis from 12(25).03.1908, no. 131. 108 MERKYS, Tautiniai, p. 97, table no. 20.

28 dare to confess that they were Lithuanians, and that actually the number of the Lithua- nians was at least several times larger than the offi cial statistics suggested.109 According to Smetona , it was impossible to rely on the national statistics or surveys of the population about their native language because Lithuanians were not nationally conscious yet; as they were able to speak different languages, they could register themselves as Lithuanians in one case, and another case as Poles, etc. What is much more reliable is an ethnographic method, which allows one to determine to which nationality a person belongs to according to certain objective criteria (“customs of the people, melodies of their songs, and the way of building houses, the names of ancient tools, types of crosses and folk art on the whole”).110 This is why Lithuanian activists were so fond of Rus- sian ethnographic maps of the 19th century in which Vilnius was included within the ethnographic territory of Lithuania.111 The Lithuanian names of the Poles purportedly indicated the ethnic origin of the Poles who were often written in inverted commas in Lithuanian texts, thus emphasising their supposed Polishness.112 The thesis of Vilnius being in ethnographic Lithuania was also based on national statistics from the fi rst half of the 19th century, according to which Lithuanians constituted a greater part of the Catholics in the city, while the Polish population was very small.113 It stands to reason that these attempts to refute the data of the offi cial statistics were needed in ideologised discussions, but they could in no way replace concrete steps that were necessary for Lithuanians to truly become established in Vilnius.

109 LAPAS [KAZYS GRINIUS]: Vilnius, in: Ūkininkas 2 (February 1899), p. 32; Apie lenkų kalbą, pp. 12-13; MEČISLOVAS DOVOINA-SILVESTRAVIČIUS: Padėkite, Vilnių atgauti [Help us to Get Vilnius Back], in: Šaltinis from 06.08.1907 (24.07.1907), no. 32, p. 499; Vilniaus lietuvių surašymas [Census of Vilnius Lithuanians], in: Viltis from 12(25).11.1908, no. 131; DZŪKAS: Taigi rūpinkimės mūsų statistika [So Let us Take Care of Our Statistics], in: Viltis from 09(22).01.1914, no. 6; L.: Lenkiškosios gegužinės pamaldos Ryme, ar lietuviškosios Vil- niuje? [The Polish May Mass in Rome, or the Lithuanian ones in Vilnius?], in: Viltis from 04(17).05.1914, no. 97. 110 A. SM. [ANTANAS SMETONA]: Skaitmenų šviesoje [In the Light of Numbers], in: Vairas from 16.01.1915, no. 2, pp. 25-26. 111 IDEM: Lietuvos etnograﬁ jos ribos [Ethnographic Boundaries of Lithuania], in: Vairas from 08.05.1914, no. 16, pp. 2-8. 112 JONAS BASANAVIČIUS: Vilniaus lietuviai ir “lenkai” statistikos šviesoje [Vilnius Lithuanians and “Poles” in the Light of Statistics], in: Viltis from 01(14).11.1908, no. 127. 113 Kauno ir Vilniaus gubernijų vietinei gyventojai [Local Inhabitants of Kaunas and Vilnius Provinces], in: Vilniaus žinios from 27.03.1905 (09.04.1905), no. 79; JONAS BASANAVI ČIUS: Vilniaus lietuviai ir “lenkai” statistikos šviesoje [Vilnius Lithuanians and “Poles” in the Light of Statistics], in: Viltis from 01(14).11.1908, no. 127. For more about the ethnic statistics of the ﬁ rst half of the 19th century see: SIRUTAVIČIUS, Tautiškumo, pp. 74-85.

29 Efforts by Lithuanians to Become Established in Vilnius (the end of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th centuries)

The activities of the leaders of Lithuanian Nationalism (the creation of organisational structures, in particular) that sought to strengthen the position of Lithuanians in Vilnius can be conditionally divided into two parts.114 The fi rst part includes illegal organizations that were founded, along with legal organisations that were created later, which were to rally the Lithuanians from Vilnius or its province, and involve themselves in preserve these Lithuanians’ national identity. Later, especially beginning with 1905, the centres of different Lithuanian organisations were founded in Vilnius, thereby confi rming the status of this city as the centre of Lithuanian Lithuania. Lithuanian Social Democrats Andrius Domaševičius and Alfonsas Moravskis were the fi rst to settle in Vilnius and start their work there. Though the fi rst program of the Lithuanian Social Democrats adopted in 1896 spoke about Lithuanian’s liberation from the Russian Empire and the creation of a federation with other countries, and the Party is considered to be a constituent part of the Lithuanian National Movement, the activity of the Lithuanian social democrats during the fi rst years of their activity is of less interest to the theme under discussion. At that time their aim was to mobilise workers to fi ght for their rights, and since the majority of Christian workers of Vilnius spoke Polish, the propaganda and campaigning was done in Polish too.115 Around 1894, several editors of the newspaper Varpas, i.e., the Lithuanian liberals who founded the Lithuanian Democratic Party later, settled in Vilnius. The centre for the activity of this group was moved from the Suvalki Province to Vilnius in 1899.116 Nonetheless, the most important sphere of interest at least during the fi rst decade of their work in Vilnius was their efforts to get additional masses in Lithuanian in at least one of the churches. It is sometimes written in memoirs that priest Juozas Ambraziejus (Ambrazevičius) was the fi rst promoter of Lithuanian Nationalism, who during confes- sion demanded from believers that they should not forget their Lithuanian and that activity, according to one of the Lithuanian liberals Grinius was the most important one:

the beginning of the penetration of new Lithuania should be left to Priest Ambražas rather than to said three varpininkai117 and two members of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Par- ty, because his religious propaganda concentrated Vilnius Lithuanians better than Lithuanian socialist literature made by the three of us for the working class of Vilnius.118

114 Though this subsection contains little new empirical material and it mainly bases itself on historiography, when considering the evolution and introduction of the idea of Vilnius as the centre of modern Lithuania, this theme could not be left out, because without elucidating to what extent the “return” of the Lithuanians to the historical capital was a success, we will not be able to explain how it was expected to reach this goal. 115 A. LIETUVIS [MORAVSKIS], p. 198; STASYS MATULAITIS, p. 130. 116 GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 1, p. 279; ibidem, vol. 2, pp. 278-279. 117 Editors of the newspaper Varpas. 118 GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 2, p. 98. Juozas Tumas (Vaižgantas) wrote in a similar way: “At ﬁ rst he [Ambraziejus] was the only conscious Lithuanian in Vilnius and trying to make others conscious too”: VAIŽGANTAS, raštai, vol. 14, p. 197.

30 Saint Nicholas church. 1913-1914. NML

In 1898, that activity of Lithuanians with respect to the language of services acquired organised forms. At that time a group of Lithuanians formed in Vilnius, which was often referred to as the “Twelve Apostles.” The following activists who had different political beliefs took part in its work: the afore-mentioned priest Ambraziejus, Social Democrat Domaševičius , Povilas Matulionis , Donatas Malinauskas , and Antanas Vileišis among others.119 One of the major goals of this group’s work was bringing back supplementary services in Lithuanian to the Catholic churches of Vilnius. Both this group and other Lithuanian activists developed a diverse programme of activities to achieve that goal: they wrote requests ﬁ rst to the Bishop of Vilnius, then to the Archbishop of Mogiliov, gathered in the Church of St. Nicholas every Sunday where they prayed and sang Lith- uanian hymns; the believers started praying in Lithuanian in the Missionaries’ Church too. At ﬁ rst the authorities of the Vilnius Diocese opposed, however, in the end they yielded: On 22-24 October 1901, a Lithuanian service was held in the Cathedral, and on 18 December of the same year the Church of St. Nicholas was given over to the Lithu-

119 POVILAS MATULIONIS, the article Kaip lietuviai spietėsi Vilniuje [How the Lithuanians Thronged in Vilnius], in: VUB RS, f. 1, b. E186, l. 1-3; BŪTĖNAS, pp. 50-51; MIKNYS, Lietu- vos, p. 26; VIDMANTAS, Religinis, pp. 158-159; MERKYS, Tautiniai, pp. 435-436.

31 Members of Vilnius Cultural Society “Rūta”. 1913. NML anians.120 At the same time these Lithuanian enthusiasts began organising semi-legal121 Lithuanian evenings where they sang Lithuanian songs, and also danced and held performances.122 The liberalisation of the political regime in 1904 allowed Lithuanians to found the fi rst legal organisation in that city – the Vilnius Lithuanian Society of Mutual Aid, which was concerned with Lithuanian cultural activities: there were performances that were staged, and a choir was organised. Engineer Petras Vileišis, who founded the Vilnius Ironware Plant in which he tried to employ only Lithuanians and even handled all documentation in Lithuanian, was a great support for work in the sphere of Lithua- nian culture.123 The 1905 Revolution created even more favourable preconditions for legal cultural activities in Lithuania and in Vilnius. In 1907, the fi rst Lithuanian primary school (it had two forms with a preparatory class) was founded there, which was attended by 107 children during the 1914-15 school year. There were Lithuanian evening and Sunday schools intended for workers that were opened. In 1910, fi ve such schools with 545 pu-

120 VIDMANTAS, Religinis, pp. 160-161; MERKYS, Tautiniai, pp. 430-432, 436-438; ANIČAS, Jo- nas Vileišis, pp. 130-135. 121 The illegal press of that time wrote much about them, for example, in Varpas. 122 BŪTĖNAS, pp. 51-52; MAKNYS, p. 114; ANIČAS, Jonas Vileišis, pp. 146-147; BALKELIS, pp. 99- 100. 123 ANIČAS, Petras Vileišis, pp. 145-146.

32 pils operated in Vilnius. An evening Lithuanian school for girls was founded in 1908.124 In 1905, the Vilniaus kanklės Society [Vilnius Zither Society] began its operations, which put on performances, concerts, and readings of fi ction. Two Lithuanian operettas were staged during the same period. In 1908, after the activity of this society declined, the following year the Rūta Society [Rue Society] was established, which engaged in a similar kind of activity as Vilniaus kanklės. At fi rst the Vilniaus aušra Society [Vilnius Dawn Society] was responsible for education for Lithuanians in the Vilnius province, with the Lithuanian Educational Society Rytas [Morning] took over these functions starting in 1913.125 Lithuanians tried to receive a second church as well, but were un- successfull. Nonetheless, Lithuanian was heard spoken in Catholic churches ever more often: in 1906, the Bishop gave the instruction to preach in Lithuanian in the churches of the Gates of Dawn, Calvary and the Cathedral when many pilgrims arrived. Later those sermons were preached throughout the whole year.126 As has been mentioned, the centres of Lithuanian organisations were being established in Vilnius during the same period, whose work covered the whole of Lithuania. There were two goals that they sought to achieve with their work: to strengthen the positions of Lithuanians in Vilnius, and what was equally important, to consolidate the role of Vilnius as a centre for Lithuanians. As has already been mentioned before, it was in Vilnius that the Congress of Lithuanians (The Great Seimas of Vilnius) was convened at the end of 1905. After the 1905 Revolution, Vilnius became the most important centre for the publishing of the Lithuanian press. In 1904, the fi rst seven books in Lithuanian were published there, and at the end of the year the daily Vilniaus žinios started to be published there, which became perhaps the main institution consolidating the Lithuanian National Movement during the years of the Revolution. In 1905, there were a total number of 81 publications printed there, with the number amounting to 136 in 1906, and 101 in 1907. The number of periodical publications in Vilnius was larger than in any other town of Lithuania: in 1905 there were 3, 9 in 1906 and 8 in 1907. Later they decreased in number somewhat.127 In 1904-1914, as much as 43 per cent of all Lithuanian production was published in Vilnius.128 In 1907, the Lithuanian Scien- tifi c Society (LSC) was established in Vilnius, where they held their meetings, public lectures, published the scientifi c journal Lietuvių tauta (Lithuanian Nation), collected museum exhibits and here they planned to found a museum. The Society acted as a kind of non-existent Lithuanian university, performing a part of its functions. Lithuanians were favourably disposed toward the possibility of creating a higher educational institution, even one that would be Russian, because Lithuanians could study there, which would be useful in different respects: there would be more Lithuanians with higher education, and besides, the number of Lithuanians in Vilnius would increase.129 It was in Vilnius that the Lithuanian Art Society was established. There were plans to found

124 ANTANAS VILEIŠIS; JURGINIS/MERKYS/TAUTAVIČIUS, p. 364. 125 P. V IEŠTAUTAS [KRAUJALIS]. 126 For more about it see: MERKYS, Tautiniai, pp. 434, 439-440. 127 JURGINIS/MERKYS/TAUTAVIČIUS, p. 365. 128 ČERNIAUSKAITĖ, p. 119. 129 STALIŪNAS, Visuomenė.

33 Poster of the first Lithuanian art exhibition, 27 December 1906 to 09 January 1907 in Vilnius. LLF

The House of the Nation (Tautos namai) in the historical capital, which would house Vilnius Lithuanian societies.130 Also, right-winged activists demanded that the centre of the Lithuanian Archbishopric covering dioceses of Seinai, Vilnius and Samogitian (Telšiai) should be established in Vilnius.131 In the opinion of some activists of the national movement, the work of the Lithu- anians in Vilnius brieﬂ y discussed above was judged in an optimistic light: “recently, with the Lithuanian press coming to life and the appearance of an intelligentsia, the Lithuanian language that is so dear to us started being heard in the streets, churches, homes, etc. in Vilnius.”132 Though, of course, it is difﬁ cult to say to what extent such assessments were sincere and to what degree they were used as a measure for mobilising

130 GRIGARAVIČIUS/SIRUTAVIČIUS, pp. 82-89. 131 MERKYS, Tautiniai, p. 379. 132 MEČISLOVAS DOVOINA-SILVESTRAVIČIUS: Padėkite, Vilnių atgaut [Help us Get Vilnius Back], in: Šaltinis from 24.07.1907 (06.08.1907), no. 32, p. 499. Similarly: IDEM: Vilnius, in: Šal- tinis from 18.06.1907, no. 25, pp. 392-394. M. Römeris also recorded strengthening of the positions of the Lithuanians in Vilnius in 1906: RÖMER, Stosunki, p. 14.

34 The members of the Lithuanian Scientific Society in Vilnius on Tauras Hill where a plot was bought for the construction of the House of the Nation. 1913. LLFI

Lithuanians. Moreover, the sale of Lithuanian books in Vilnius increased every year,133 which could testify both to an increase in the number of Lithuanians that were reading and to the fact that the number of those reading did not grow but the same buyers started reading more, or, perhaps, to an increased price for Lithuanian books. In truth, the large number of Lithuanian institutions in Vilnius, the abundance of different events, publications of the periodical press might form the impression that Lithuanians became a clearly visible national group in Vilnius at the beginning of the 20th century. There are no doubts that before World War One Vilnius became the main organisational centre of the Lithuanian National Movement.134 Nonetheless, some more or less objective data showed that Lithuanians had the status of a non-inﬂ uential minority both in the city of Vilnius and in the province. For example, according to the data collected by Antanas Tyla, at the end of 1905, only 3 of the total 59 meetings and demonstrations held by Lithuanians took place in the Vilnius Province135. The results of the elections to the Russian Dumas were not good for Lithuanians. It is true that during the elections to the First Duma in 1906, several Lithuanians that were running received

133 Lithuanian publications sold at Šlapelienė -Piaseckaitė Bookshop in Vilnius brought in the following amounts: in 1906 – 3000 roubles, in 1907 – 4000 roubles, in 1908 – 5000 roubles, in 1909 – 6000 roubles, in 1910 – 7000 roubles, in 1911 – 9000 roubles, in 1912 – 12,000 roubles, in 1913 – 15,000 roubles: Lietuvos žinios from 22.05.1914 (05.05.1914), no. 85. 134 Theodore R. Weeks stated that “Lithuanian civil society expanded signiﬁ cantly in the decade between 1905 and the German occupation”: WEEKS, Creating, p. 258. 135 MOTIEKA, p. 108.

35 over 1,000 votes in the fourth electoral district of Vilnius;136 however, this result was determined by Jewish voters.137 The true situation of supporting the Lithuanians became clear in the elections to the Second Duma when Lithuanians took part in the elections without forming a block with the Jews. At the time Basanavičius received 19 votes in the fourth electoral district, the Lithuanian list got one vote in the ﬁ fth electoral district, while other Lithuanian candidates received 5 votes in the seventh electoral district.138 Lietuvos žinios guessed that there were about 300 Lithuanian electors in the city of Vilnius during the elections to the Fourth Duma of Russia, and the election results were sad for the Lithuanians: one Lithuanian candidate was given 30 votes and the other 28 votes, whereas the candidate of the Polish National-Democratic Party received 5397 votes.139 It stands to reason that opponents used these data seeking to deny the Lithuanians’ claims to Vilnius. The vulnerability of the positions of the Lithuanians in Vilnius is seen even more clearly when one remembers that, according to ofﬁ cial statistics, Lithuanians accounted for about 2 per cent of the inhabitants of the historical capital, and political forces that represented other national groups were not inclined to approve of the autonomy of ethnographic Lithuania with the capital city of Vilnius, let alone the creation of an independent state.

Vil’na, Wilno, Vilne/Vilna, Vilnia

Vilnius (Vil’na) was the administrative centre of the Northwestern Territory, the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which, according to the conception of history formulated in the fi rst half of the 19th century, was a Russian state. Therefore it is not surprising that especially after the suppression of the 1863-64 uprising, as the names of the streets were changed, and Orthodox churches or monuments to the defenders of the “Russian matter” (Vilnius Governor-General Mikhail Murav’ev,140 Tsarina Cathe- rine II) were built, every effort was made to accentuate the Russian nature of the city. Though political practice showed quite clearly that the imperial authorities themselves perceived that they would not be able to convert Vilnius from being a centre of Pol- ish culture into one of Russian culture,141 neither the representatives of the authorities nor the Russian public fi gures that sympathised with them were going to admit that. Alongside the Poles, the Jews caused the greatest anxiety for offi cials. If we believe the Bund press of the beginning of the 20th century, rumours circulated in the Vilnius garrison that it would be necessary to suppress “a mutiny” because “the Poles and the

136 Vybory v Vil’ne [Elections in Vilnius], in: Novaia zaria 137 (1906). 137 For more about these elections see: STALIŪNAS, Collaboration, pp. 45-75. 138 Vybory v Vil’ne [Elections in Vilnius], in: Svobodnoe slovo 206 (1907). 139 K.: Delei rinkimų Vilniuje [Regarding the Elections in Vilnius], in: Lietuvos žinios from 02(15).10.1912, no. 116. 140 WEEKS, Monuments, pp. 551-564. 141 The fear of the imperial authorities to found even a Russian university because it was forecasted that soon the Poles would put into the shade the Russians could be a vivid illustration of such statements.

36 Monument to the Governor General of Vilnius Mikhail Murav’ev. 1900s. NML

Jews wanted to take away Vilnius from the Russians.”142 The offi cials saw Lithuanians in this light combining forces with Vilnius residents of other nationalities much more rarely. This cannot be said about the Poles. In the 20th century Polish political activists were the main critics of the idea of modern (ethnographic) Lithuania with Vilnius as its capital. Vilnius became a city of Polish culture in Polish discourse at the beginning of the 20th century. It was stated in the Polish publications that Vilnius University and famous Polish writers and artists purportedly left their mark of Polishness there. The idea of autonomy (later that of independence) of ethnographic Lithuania was not acceptable for any of the Polish political currents (National Democrats, Democrats, Socialists, Conservatives, members of the krajowcy movement) functioning in Lithuania at the beginning of the 20th century. All of them, no matter how differently they imagined their future relations with ethnic Poland, gave priority to the projects of territorial autonomy of historical Lithuania.143 Polish publicists, fi rst of all National Democrats and the Democrats, answered to the question “who does Vilnius belong to/who should Vilnius belong to?” on the basis of national, as well as historical arguments. Even those Polish publicists who admitted that Lithuanians in Vilnius accounted for more than two per cent of the city’s inhabitants, still considered the Lithuanians to be a quantitatively marginal group in that city.144 Since it was not diffi cult “to forget” the Jews, Vilnius was easily turned into

142 Vil’no, in: Poslednie izvestiia 133 (1903). 143 These Polish political trends had different views on future relations between Poland and Lithuania. 144 PIOTR ZUBOWICZ: O obecnym stanie posiadania ludu litewskiego [On the Present Territory of Lithuanians], in: Praca 7 (1909), p. 23; WASILEWSKI, p. 255.

37 a city of Poles, 145 fi rst of all in the writings of the National Democrats. It is true that there was a place for Lithuanians (like for other national groups) that was reserved in Vilnius in rhetoric. According to the Polish interpretation, the environs of Vilnius were Polish-Belarusian, and having taken into consideration the low national awareness of Belarusians, they, fi rst of all the Catholics, were attributed to the Poles.146 Thus the environs of Vilnius became Polish, which meant that they were not included in the territory of Lithuanian Lithuania.147 Furthermore, historically, Vilnius was regarded as a Polish city too because, for example, the surnames of all the craftsmen in the books of the Vilnius magistracy of the 16th and 17th centuries were Polish and Ruthenian, and, in addition, the origin of the name of Vilnius was Slavic as well.148 Though in Lithuanian periodicals at the beginning of the 20th century the Belarusian National Movement was not identifi ed as posing a danger to the political aspirations of the Lithuanians,149 as well as to the fi ght for Vilnius, and sometimes even the possibility was discussed for them to peacefully coexist in the historical capital of Lithuania, 150 it was clear to Lithuanian politicians from the very start of the 1905 Revolution that the Belarusian National Movement, which at that time was in its nascent stage, would become another obstacle to the implementation of the political project of ethnographic Lithuania in the long run. Though the Belarusian National Movement was “delayed”, it was still the typical kind of nationalism of non-dominant national groups in Central and Eastern Europe that was based on an ethno-linguistic concept of nationality. Thus it is not surprising that Belarusian nationalists perceived Belarus in the same way as the Lithuanian leaders perceived Lithuania – as a territory dominated by a Belarusian population, 151 and, according to their understanding, Vilnius found itself in the territory of what was imagined to be Belarus.152 This ethnographic “overlapping” of national Lithuania and national Belarus did not become a theme of fi erce debates in public debate at the beginning of the 20th century because the Belarusian National Movement was weak and many leaders of this movement wanted to gain autonomy for historic Lithuania during the fi rst stage, in the framework of which the Belarusian Nationalism would be able to strengthen, which would enable the seeking of autonomy for ethnographic Belarus in the future.153 For this reason there are no aspirations to see Vilnius as a national city for Belarusians found in Belarusian discourse at the beginning of the

145 JAN OBST: Historja a życie [History and Life], in: Kurjer Litewski 116 (1912). 146 NARCYZ OGOŃCZYK: Stosunki etnograﬁ czne na Litwie [Ethnographic Relations in Lithua- nia], in: Goniec codzienny 35 (1910). 147 WASILEWSKI, p. 255. Józef Piłsudski’s attitude was the same: VYŠNIAUSKAS, p. 108. 148 IGNACY ŚWIETLIŃSKI: Mały feljeton. Wiosna wszechwładna [The Small Satire. Omnipotent Spring], in: Kurjer Litewski 147 (1915). 149 One exception to the rule might the article by LIUDAS GIRA: Pavojus didesnis – negu manome [The Danger is Much Greater Than We Think], in: Viltis from 09(22).05.1910, nr. 52. 150 Dėl Vilniaus [Regarding Vilnius], in: Viltis from 04(17).01.1909, no. 1. 151 UNUCHAK, “Nasha niva” i belaruski, pp. 70-71. 152 MASTIANICA. 153 UNUCHAK, Nasha niva i belarusskoe, pp. 172-180.

38 20th century yet;154 the leaders of this national movement wanted to see Vilnius as the centre of the whole region, i.e. of all the nations rather than its dominance by any single nation,155 and they could in no way agree to the political idea of ethnographic Lithuania put forward by the Lithuanians, which, in their opinion, divided Belarus into two parts and unlawfully attributed Vilnius to Lithuania rather than to Belarus.156 Various projects of personal rather than territorial autonomy prevailed in the programs of Jewish political parties in Russian, which were to be implemented after the Russian Empire had been democratised. Therefore before the beginning of the First World War, Jewish publicists did not take any interest in discussions about attributing Vilnius to one or another “national territory”. Furthermore, the Lithuanians as a nation of peasants on the whole received little attention on “Jewish street”. The only exception was the Kaunas province dominated by the Lithuanians in which during the elections to the Russian Duma there was a tradition of forming a Lithuanian-Jewish election bloc. The question “Who does Vilnius belong to” began to be raised in Jewish publications during the First World War. The signal coming from the leadership of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), which at that time operated underground in the Romanov Empire and had little infl uence in Lithuania, was not favourable to Lithuanians either. The leader of the said party Vladimir Ul’janov (Lenin) in his argument with another re- nowned left-wing activist Rosa Luxemburg stated the principles for the establishment of national territorial autonomy which were not to the advantage of Lithuanians. Firstly, the leader of the Bolsheviks stated that in Lithuania’s case only the districts in which Lithuanians made up the majority should be taken into consideration rather than the national constitution of the four provinces, as Luxemburg had suggested; to be precise, in Vilnius province it was only the Trakai District “where Lithuanians were the majority” that he offered to include into an autonomous Lithuania. However, he emphasized that one should not be guided by the national composition of the population alone, as, for example, cities “play an important role in capitalism” and they are multinational, therefore, Lenin maintained, “it is senseless and impossible to detach cities from the villages and rural areas that are leaning on them economically on the grounds of the ‘national’ aspect”. In addition, the leader of the Bolsheviks also underlined that the opinion of the local population should by all means be taken into consideration. It would be diffi cult to justify the thesis that in the early 20th century ethnic Lithuania was leaning economically towards Vilnius, the more so that Lenin had already defi ned the boundaries of that Lithuania (incorporating only the Trakai District from the Vilnius Province). The inhabitants of Vilnius and its surroundings at that time were also in no disposition to support the project of Lithuanian Lithuania.157

154 SMALIANCHUK, pp. 327-343. 155 IŠ: Vilniaus reikšmė mūsų krašte [Signiﬁ cance of Vilnius in Our Country], in: Lietuvos žin- ios from 16(29).04.1914, no. 80. The article retold here is taken from Vecherniaia gazeta [Evening Newspaper]. 156 RÖMERIS, Lietuva, p. 205; IDEM, Lietuva karo akivaizdoje, p. 215; MIKNYS, Vilnius, p. 114. 157 LENIN, p. 146.

39 Hence, both in Vilnius and, taking a broader look, all over Lithuania, it was diffi cult for Lithuanians to fi nd allies in their fi ght for implementing the political idea of an ethnographic Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius.

How Did They Hope to Implement Their Idea?

It has already been mentioned that the weak position of Lithuanians in Vilnius and the Vilnius province, which was clearly demonstrated that during the four elections to the Russian Dumas where none of the Lithuanians were elected, had to be a real headache for Lithuanian politicians. The majority of Lithuanian political forces, as mentioned above, projected the territorial autonomy of Lithuania within its ethnographic boundaries, with the city of Vilnius as being within these boundaries. Later autonomy was to be replaced by a nation state. Any more or less democratic demarcation of that autonomous territory or even the borders of an independent state, having in mind the said weak positions of the Lithuanians in the historical capital, as well as in the Vilnius province, could come to an unfavourable end for Lithuanians. There can be no doubt that Lithuanians foresaw this possibility. Having taken into account the programmes of political forces that represented other national groups of historical Lithuania, it become obvious that the project of an ethno-linguistic Lithuania (hence, without Vilnius) would be easier to implement:

We demanded autonomy for Lithuania with the Seimas in Vilnius, disregarding the fact that the residents of the city of Vilnius and its environs are partly foreigners and partly denationalised Lithuanians who care little about the affairs of ethnographic Lithuania; as compared with foreigners, there is only a handful of conscious Lithuanians in Vilnius itself. The Lith- uanians who are not denationalised live just some miles northwest of Vilnius; in the east of Vilnius there are the Vileyka and Ashmyany Districts inhabited by Belarusians, though there are Lithuanians there too, only they are few in number and it is difﬁ cult to expect that they would join ethnographic Lithuania. How can there be a Parliament in Vilnius if the majority of the residents of Vilnius would not agree to belong to Lithuania’s autonomy and would desire to be, let’s say, the capital of Belarus. [...] If the representatives to the Duma are the same as they were last year, Lithuania’s autonomy within the national boundaries with its Parliament in Vilnius will simply be impossible to gain. Then it will be necessary either to renounce Lithuania’s autonomy altogether or to agree with the opinion of those who demand Lithuania’s autonomy within the historical boundaries or ﬁ nally to narrow Lithuania even more and to choose another place for the Parliament, just not Vilnius.158

158 P. Z ONIS [STANISLOVAS STAKELĖ]: Lietuvos autonomija ir lietuviai-rytiečiai [Lithuania’s Au- tonomy and Lithuanians-Orientals], in: Vilniaus žinios from 12(25).12.1906, no. 277. The author of this article Priest Stanislovas Stakelė was one of the ﬁ ercest ﬁ ghters for the rights of the Lithuanian language in the churches of Vilnius diocese.

40 Hence, we shall try to discuss in this subsection how different Lithuanian political groups intended to solve the problem that potentially could have arisen about including Vilnius in the Lithuania. The Lithuanian Social Democrats imagined liberation from the Russian Empire as a result of the fi ght by subjugated nations, fi rst and foremost by the worker class.159 Since social and economic issues prevailed in the programs of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, a multiethnic character of Vilnius or Lithuania was not a problem of the scope it was to other currents in the Lithuanian National Movement. In other words, it was not thought that a different language used by the workers could pose an obstacle for them in agreeing upon the main political goals. As mentioned above, at the initial stage of their work, the Lithuanian Social Democrats of Vilnius carried out their campaign mainly in Polish, because there were hardly any workers speaking Lithuanian. 160 Polish-speaking workers were treated as Polonised Lithuanians, which was testifi ed to by the shared interests, the common past and even by the “very blood and nature” of those Polonised Lithuanians and Lithuanian-speaking workers. An additional argument was the circumstance that a large number of Polish-speaking workers participated in the activities of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party.161 Cooperation of the Lithua- nian Social Democratic Party with the Jewish socialist parties, fi rst and foremost with the Bund, also had to strengthen the conviction of the Lithuanian Social Democrats that national problems would not become an obstacle to forming Lithuania’s territory.162 Lithuanian liberals, above all the left wing of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, similarly to the Social Democrats, did not rely on their own forces and tried to coop- erate with other national groups that were opposed to the imperial regime. Starting in 1913, the possibility of creating an independent state began to be linked to a world war, hoping that the largest European states would try to create independent states between Germany and Russia after the war came to an end.“163 However, attempts to come to agreement with the democrats representing other nations were not too successful: the idea of an ethnographic Lithuania with Vilnius put forward by the Lithuanians confl ict-

159 Susivažiavimas L. S. D. P. [Congress of the LSDP], in: Darbininkų balsas 3 (1902), pp. 2-3; S.P. [JANULAITIS], p. 49. Only those activists of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party are discussed here who spoke for Lithuanian’s secession from Russia and the creation of an independent state as absolutely independent or in (con)federation with other states. 160 A. LIETUVIS [MORAVSKIS], pp. 199-200. 161 C.L.S.D.P.K., Lietuvių Social-Demokratų Partijos Konferencija [C.L.S.D.P., Conference of the Lithuanian Social-Democratic Party], in: Darbininkų balsas 1 (1903), p. 9; Šis-tas apie Lenkų Socijalistų Partiją [This or That About the Polish Socialist Party], ibidem 6 (1905), p. 177. 162 The organisation PPS in Lithuania which joined the Lithuanian Social-Democartic Par- ty in 1906, contained a Jewish faction too: VIDMANTAS, Lietuvos, p. 63; L. V-KAS [KAZYS G RINIUS]: Apie šalies neprigulmybę [On the Country’s Independence], in: Varpas 3 (April 1914), p. 100. 163 L. V-KAS [KAZYS GRINIUS]: Apie šalies neprigulmybę [On the Country’s Independence], in: Varpas 3 (April 1914), p. 100.

41 ed with the concept of autonomy in the lands in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was supported by Polish, Belarusian and Jewish liberals.164 The right-wing Lithuanians who consistently defended their ethno-linguistic model of founding a modern Lithuania found themselves in an equally complex situation. Having concentrated their attention on ethno-cultural values, they inevitably turned the Poles into their main enemy. Having a bitter enemy in their fi ght against infl uence in Vilnius and the Vilnius Province, Lithuanians looked for allies, and the Jews fi tted that role in the constellation of national groups at the beginning of the 20th century. Lithu- anians regularly formed an electoral bloc with the Jews in the elections to the Russian Dumas, following the principle of “the lesser of two evils.” It was the ingenious ma- noeuverings of Basanavičius , one of the main Lithuanian right-wing leaders that gave rise to this tradition at the time of the elections to the First Duma in 1906. This pragmatic union, especially between the right-wing Lithuanian politicians and representatives of the Jews, was not based on a deeper agreement of their political programmes, but was rather an action dictated by political conjuncture.165 Lithuanian politicians knew very well that no political group on “Jewish street” was interested in the territorial autonomy of Lithuania or the creation of an independent state. Hence, the rightist had no sincere supporters of the idea of an ethnographic Lithuania among other ethnic groups either in Vilnius or in other cities. To turn the cities and Vilnius in the fi rst place into Lithuanian cities in an ethno-linguistic sense was a very vague perspective. It is true that the successful establishment of other nations of a similar social structure, say the Estonian and Latvian ones, in the cities of the Baltic Region [Pribaltiiskii krai], which was covered in the Lithuanian mass media, could give some hope.166 The Lithuanian public activists and broader layers of society in general could expect that after the Pale of Settlement would be abolished, a part of the Jews would move out of Lithuania.167 These hopes were not even concealed, as shown by the following: “After permission has been given to Jews to live not only in Lithuania but also all over Russia, many Jews will move out of Lithuania and there will be fewer of them there.”168 However, it is likely that in this sense Lithu- anian politicians were not great optimists, at least when they thought about the immediate future. For example, when arguing that Vilnius had to be the centre of Lithuania (Lithuanians) Smetona gave reasons as to why Panevėžys was unsuitable for this role.

164 MIKNYS, Vilniaus, pp. 173-198. 165 STALIŪNAS, Collaboration, pp. 45-75. 166 ANTANAS SMETONA: Mums svarbu Lietuvos miestai [Lithuanian Cities are Important to Us], in: Viltis from 27.10.1913 (09.11.1913), no. 126. 167 A large part of the Lithuanian Society expected from the authorities this move: PILYPS [K. ŽALYS]: Su kuo reikia tartis rinkimų laike [Who do we have to Consult during the Elections], in: Lietuvos ūkininkas from 18(31).01.1907, no. 3, p. 35. Also see: Kroniai, in: Vilniaus žinios from 03(16).05.1905, no. 109; A. SKETERIS: Sodiečių sandora [Villagers’ Concord], ibidem, from 12(25).11.1905, no. 266; Joniškis, ibidem, from 05(18).12.1905, no. 286; A-S [POVILAS VIŠINSKIS]: Naujos caro “malonės” [The Tsar’s New “Favours”], in: Ūkininkas 10 (1905), p. 272; Demands of Lithuanian Peasants of Pumpėnai Small Rural Distric (Kaunas Province), 10.07.1905, in: LVIA, f. 378, PS, 1905, b. 13, l. 116. 168 Paaiškinimas [Explanation], in: Vilniaus žinios from 06(19).05.1905, no. 112.

42 If this city were turned into the centre of the country, it would not become Lithuanian because Lithuanians were weak in an economic sense and did not have enough educated people, hence, the Poles and the Jews would dominate there, in other words “the face of the centre of Panevėžys would be like that of Vilnius or Kaunas.”169 The same logic had to be valid in the case of Vilnius, i.e., in this way Smetona practically admitted that the Lithuanians were not able to change the “face” of Vilnius yet. Therefore the need to ﬁ nd allies beyond Lithuania’s borders manifested itself in a political vision of the right- wing Lithuanian political currents more clearly than in other currents of the Lithuanian National Movement.170 On a more abstract level it was expected that a newly re-created Poland would not be strong after a European conﬂ ict, as other countries of the region would not want that.171 Though this was not stated directly, it can be presupposed that Lithuanian activists hoped that those large European states would not allow Poland to do harm to Lithuania. Nonetheless, at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, such possible post-war alternatives of restructuring Europe were rarely considered. This subject became relevant just before the First World War. Until about 1913, Lith- uanian politicians were forced to follow existing political realities. First and foremost, Lithuanian right-wing politicians and liberals looked for allies in the camp of Russian liberals, in particular among the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) of Russia. There were even Lithuanian politicians, such as, for example, Petras Leonas, who joined the Kadet Party. During the 1905 Revolution, Lithuanian activists cherished hopes that the Kadet Party would give support to the project of autonomy for ethnographic Lithuania. In 1906, a meeting was held in St. Petersburg between right-wing Lithuanian activists Basanavičius , Andrius Dubinskas and Augustinas Voldemaras and the leaders of the Kadet Party. The latter were interested in a greater support of their party in the whole of the empire, and therefore gave promises to the Lithuanians, however these promises were very abstract. The Lithuanian activists were assured that the Kadet Party “was sympathetic to their demands, and agreed to support the introduction of self-rule as broad as possible in our country without delay.“172 As we see, even at the level of promises the Kadets were inclined to speak about self-rule rather than about autonomy. However, the Kadets did not actually intend to support the creation of national territorial units on the borderlands of the empire at all.173 Furthermore, their

169 ANTANAS SMETONA: Kur Lietuvos centras? [Where is the Centre of Lithuania?], in: Viltis from 03(16).12.1910, no. 139. 170 Česlovas Laurinavičius has written about this aspect in: LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos-Sovietų, p. 102. 171 TERREMONT [GABRIELIUS LANDSBERGIS]: Pro domo sua, in: Varpas 7 (July 1893), pp. 107- 108. 172 DR. JONAS BASANAVIČIUS, A. DUBINSKAS, AUGUSTINAS VOLDEMARAS: Lietuvos autonomija ir Rusų konstitutiškai demokratiškoji partija [Lithuania’s Autonomy and the Russian Constitu- tional Democratic Party], in: Vilniaus žinios from 18(31).01.1906, no. 13. 173 Grinius writes in his memoirs that it was because the Kadets did not support the requirements for Lithuania’s autonomy that Leonas left that Party: GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 2, pp. 64, 163. We think that Egidijus Motieka’s statement that “the Kadets supposedly recognised Lithuanian’s rights to autonomy” (MOTIEKA, p. 228) is to be corrected.

43 main supporters in Lithuania were Jews and Poles174, for whom, as has already been mentioned, the idea of autonomy of ethnographic Lithuania was unacceptable. This factor also must have discouraged the Kadet leaders from supporting the demands of the Lithuanians. The right-wing Lithuanians understood that quite soon. In 1909, Basa- navičius openly considered that Russian right-wing parties were more favourable to the Lithuanians than the Kadets, who were “friends of the Poles.“175 The afore-mentioned considerations of Basanavičius about the possible benevo- lence of the right-wing Russian parties towards the political aspirations of the Lithu- anians was not a rash thought on the part of “the patriatch of the Lithuanian nation”. Lithuanian right-wing politicians had regularly tried to persuade the imperial government that it was possible to ﬁ ght against the main enemy of Russia on the western edges of the empire and to support the Lithuanians, i.e., by carrying out the policy of “divide and rule”. It is this intention that essentially led Basanavičius to publish anti-Polish articles in the newspaper Novoe vremia [New Times] while in 1884 Lithuanians, i.e. Jonas Šliūpas , presented an ofﬁ cial letter containing the demands of the Lithuanians to the Governor-General of Warsaw,176 and in 1911, Basanavičius, Smetona and Davainis-Sil- vestraitis conducted negotiations with Russian rightists over a joint anti-Polish front177, etc. In reality, the bureaucrats of the empire often debated the usefulness of supporting the Lithuanians against the Poles, as well as about uniting all ethnic Lithuanians into a single territorial-administrative unit, however, at the beginning of the 20th century all of these talks led nowhere. The political elite of the empire understood clearly the threat the territorialisation of ethnicity might pose to the whole of the empire:

In artiﬁ cially creating special ethnographic units and grouping administrative centres according to nationality, the government would only emphasise the existence of individual nations at a state level and would contradict the Tsar’s mandates, which safeguarded the state interests of Russia.178

Hence, as long as the autocratic regime was strong, the territorialisation of ethnicity was hardly likely; but with the regime becoming weaker and after administrative boundaries had started to be drawn according to ethnographic indications, Lithuanians could expect support from St. Petersburg in their territorial conﬂ ict with the Poles. The First World War that broke out in 1914 meant not only different shortages for Lithuania but also hope that favourable circumstances might form for the Lithuanian national idea, which foresaw the creation of a nation state with its capital in Vilnius.

174 STALIŪNAS, Collaboration, p. 45. 175 IKS. [JONAS BASANAVIČIUS]: Dar apie Suvalkų gubernijos atskyrimą [Again on Separating Suvalki Province], in: Viltis from 28.08.1909 (10.09.1909), no. 99. 176 J. BKP [JURGIS ŠAULYS]: J. Šliupo pasiuntinystė Varšuvoje [Šliupas’ Mission in Warsaw], in: Varpas 3 (1904), pp. 42-45. 177 DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS’ letter of 05.02.911 to Basanavičius, in: LLTI RS, f. 1, b. 1843, l. 1; MIKNYS, Lietuvos, pp. 150-151. 178 Top secret ofﬁ cial letter of the Governor-General of Warsaw of 04.01.1899 to the Minister of the Interior I. L. Goremykin, in: RGIA, f. 1284, op. 185, 1898, d. 55, l. 8.

44 II In the Vortex of the First World War

War refugees in Vilnius

When the First World War broke out on August 1, 1914, Lithuania found itself on the border of two empires, Russia and Germany, which were at war.1 It was only in 1915 that the territory of Lithuania turned into a theatre for military operations, with the heaviest burdens of war falling upon its inhabitants immediately. The border residents felt this most acutely since they had to leave their homes and become war refugees. Vilnius became one of the places of concentration of Lithuanian war refugees, and the local Lithuanian intelligentsia undertook charity work. The Lithuanian Society for the Support of War Victims that started operating with Russia’s permission in 1914 concentrated the Lithuanian intelligentsia residing in Vilnius, and the society’s organisational meetings turned into rallies by Lithuanian activists in Vilnius. The main concern of this society, which became a centre with charity-like duties, (at the beginning of 1915 it took over the assets of the liquidated Vilnius Lithuanian Committee for the Support of War Refugees – the funds raised and refugee shelters) was to take care of Lithuanian war refugees; however, the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement and society treated that Society as a representation of sorts for the national community in the capital of Lithuania. The wave of Lithuanian refugees that poured into Vilnius descended upon the Lith- uanian activists who carried with them the burden of social problems. However, soon it brought more joy than headache to them. The Lithuanian press even rejoiced, stating that the refugees radically changed the national landscape of Vilnius:

Vilnius became markedly Lithuanianised after the war had broken out. A wave of refugees, having come from Suwałki and Kaunas, swept over Vilnius so widely that [...] it made Lithua nianism [lietuvybė] visible at once. In this sense, the war at least thus far has turned out to be a terrible ally of the establishment of Lithuanianism in Vilnius, and our refugees are destined to play an especially signiﬁ cant role in reviving Lithuanianism in this city.

1 A general situation during the war is presented in Theodore R. Weeks’ article: WEEKS, Vil- nius, pp. 34-57.

45 The members of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Society for the Support of War Victims. From left to right: sitting Stasys Šilingas, Emilija Vileišienė, Martynas Yčas, Antanas Vileišis, Rev. Konstantinas Olšauskas, Jonas Basanavičius, Jonas Kymantas; standing Jokūbas Šernas, Rev. Povilas Dogelis, Juozas Balčikonis, Rev. Juozapas Kukta, Antanas Žmuidzinavičius, Antanas Smetona. Vilnius. 1915. NML

The Lithuanian press hoped that this sudden increase in the number of Lithuanians in Vilnius would not be temporary, and after the war came to an end the latter would not return “to their old nests scattered all over Lithuania”. Such optimistic preconditions were based on the social composition of the refugees – there were almost no farmers among them, and the majority consisted, as was stated, “of mixed semi-intelligentsia and a crowd of different workers, craftsmen and the landless who earned a living with their own hands as well as their able-bodiedness in our cities and towns”. Therefore the press wrote that after the war, the workers and the landless peasants would not return to their old places of residence and would stay in Vilnius because they easily take root where they would ﬁ nd suitable conditions for living, so if the latter found favourable conditions in Vilnius, they would stay in the city after the war too.2 An increase in the size of the Lithuanian lower social strata was necessary for the Lithuanian activists, who sought to radically change national balance of the communities in the city of Vil- nius in favour of Lithuanians.

2 SAUGUS: Vilniaus lietuvybė ir pabėgėliai [Lithuanianism of Vilnius and the Refugees], in: Viltis from 31.01.1915.

46 The Lithuanian press urged the Lithuanian Society for the Support of War Victims to take care of employment for the refugees so that the latter could lay their roots down in Vilnius. The employment of refugees was treated as a problem of establishing a Lith- uanian element there, noting that “the refugees, having become real residents of Vilni- us, will build a life for all of us on the new foundations in a city that seems so strange to us, but which has to be ours, at least no less than that for the Poles and Jews”.3 True, giving jobs to Lithuanians solved only a part of the programme for Lithuanianising Vilnius because, as the Lithuanian press noted,

now the masters of the city are those who have the administrative institutions of the city in their hands. These institutions were in the hands of those owning real estate they were elected by them and from among them. However those owning real estate, even if they did not have the reins of the affairs of the city in their hands, will always be the real masters and would give the city its face alone because of the fact that are part of the foundation of the cities – the real estate and employers of many different craftsmen.

Therefore the Lithuanian press proposed to establish a Lithuanian society to build houses in Vilnius.4 At the same time the Lithuanians were encouraged to speak Lithu- anian in Vilnius.5 During the war years, interethnic relations worsened in Vilnius. On the one hand, they became more strained because of the social problems caused by the war, and on the other hand, they deteriorated because a considerably larger Lithuanian community boldly demanded its rights. In the spring of 1915, the daily Lietuvos žinios [Lithuania’s News] wrote the following: “the Vilnius province, especially the part inhabited by Lith- uanians is, could be said, like Lithuania’s Macedonia where two chief elements – the Poles and the Lithuanians – are still competing for culture and politics” and the centre of this conﬂ ict is in the Church, which, in its turn, (“affecting religious feelings of large crowds, hence, the most acute point of the people’s psyche”) fuels the dispute even more. The Lithuanian refugees that ﬂ ooded Vilnius became the catalyst for this competition, and more rights were started to be demanded in the churches of Vilnius for pastoral care in Lithuanian. Lithuanians were no longer content with the church services held in Lithuanian in only one parish, the Church of St. Nicolas, in Vilnius. The Lithuanian press treated the church as a tool, thereby it was most convenient and effective to seek for the embodiment of the picture of Lithuanian Vilnius.6 In 1915, the authorities of the Vilnius Diocese gave permission for Lithuanian services to be held at the Chapel of the Charity Society, the Church of the Holy Cross (Knights of the Hospitallers), the Church

3 IDEM: Naujais pamatais [On New Foundations], in: Viltis from 07.02.1915. 4 IDEM: Steikime draugiją namams statytis [Let us Establish a House Building Society], in: Viltis from 23.03.1915. 5 Vilniaus lietuvinimas karo metu [Lithuanianisation of Vilnius during the War Years], in: Viltis from 05.02.1915. 6 J. BEKAMPIS: Lietuvių-lenkų klausimu [On the Lithuanian-Polish Issue], in: Lietuvos žinios from 15.02.1915.

47 of St. Peter and St. Paul and the Church of St. Jacob and Philip.7 Services were also held in the Chapel of the Gates of Dawn and the Cathedral.8 All of these things, however, were just considerations of the Lithuanian activists on the theme of Lithuanianisation of Vilnius rather than steps that were actually taken, because Lithuanians lacked both human and material resources to implement them. The refugees that had ﬂ ooded Vilnius could not change the face of the city – the linguistic landscape of Vilnius in essence remained unchanged. In May 1915, Viltis admitted the following: “Looking from the outside, Vilnius still creates the impression of a Polish city; there are so few public manifestations of Lithuanianism here yet”.9

In the presence of new geopolitical realities

We have already mentioned that at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the idea often cropped up in the Lithuanian political discourse that modern Lithuania could achieve political independence only when Europe was shaken by great geopolitical upheavals and the great powers undertook the “redrawing” of the political map. At the beginning of the war, a good number of Lithuanian politicians, ﬁ rst and foremost those who were right-wing, linked the idea of greater or lesser political independence of Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius to a Russian victory in the war. The most vivid illustration of this position could be the well-known “Amber Declaration” prepared by Stasys Šilingas, Basanavičiaus and Malinauskas , in which they declared loyalty to the Romanov Empire as well as the hope that Russia would base the make- up of its country on the creation of smaller entities made along ethnographic lines (one should understand this to be Lithuania among others).10 This Russophilia had a clear pragmatic nature. At the beginning of the Great War, there were deliberations of a model of Europe’s post-war organisation that had been discussed among the ruling elite of the Tsarist Empire, who began taking the ethnographic principle more and more often into account. In other words, they planned to establish new political borders according to ethnographic territories.11 Lithuanian politicians hoped that by rearranging the political-administrative organisation of historical Lithuania, the demands of Lithuanians would be taken into consideration more than, for example, those of the Poles, because the authorities of the Empire regarded the latter as its main enemy on the western borders of the state. Lithuanian activists hoped that by holding to these ethnographic principles so called Lithuania Manor in Eastern Prussia, which was inhabited by Lithuanians, would be attached to Lithuania. Moreover, Lithuanian activists thought

7 MERKYS, Tautiniai, p. 440. 8 Vilniaus kronika [Vilnius Chronicle], in: Viltis from 30.04.1915. 9 L.: Visame būkime savimi [Let Us be Ourselves in Everything], in: Viltis from 08.05.1915. 10 LOPATA, p. 30. 11 Ibidem, pp. 20-22.

48 that the so-called policy of Russifi cation was less dangerous to the Lithuanians than Germanisation.12 Meantime Lithuanian left-leaning politicians tied Lithuania’s political independence not so much to the policy of the great powers, but looked for allies among the non-dominant national groups both in Lithuania and in neighbouring countries. As before, Russian liberals did not promise any autonomy to Lithuania, no matter how it was understood, so left-wing Lithuanian politicians, fi rst and foremost members of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, started discussions with Polish politicians, fi rst in Vilni- us, and later in Warsaw. During those discussions, Lithuanians were given an offer to revive the Jagiellonian union, i.e. the union between Poland and historical Lithuania, on democratic foundations. Neither the fi rst (the model of historical Lithuania) nor the second (the union with Poland) was an acceptable option for the Lithuanian Demo- crats.13 The majority of Lithuanian politicians, as before, gave priority to the territorial formula adopted at the Great Seimas of Vilnius. As before the war, this Lithuanian political vision failed to fi nd allies among activists representing other national groups in Lithuania. The Polish response to Lithuanians’ claims to Vilnius during the war years repeated pre-war statements: the Lithuanians in Vilnius, even having taken into consideration the refugees that had fl ooded the city, constituted an insignifi cant minority, while the environs of the city were Belarusian-Polish; moreover, the Belarusian language of these settlements was close to Polish, hence, the claims by Lithuanians were absolutely groundless.14 The Belarusians who, as has already been mentioned, perceived Vilnius in the composition of ethnographic Belarus and saw an opportunity to restore historical Lithuania as a tactical solution, also spoke sharply against the concept of ethnographic Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius in meetings of the democratic parties representing different nations of historical Lithuania. For them, Vilnius was the natural capital for historical Lithuania. The claims by Lithuanians to the Catholic part of ethnographic Belarus seemed dangerous to Belarusian activists, because the remaining part of Belarus, which was dominated by Orthodox Believers, would be easily assimilated by Russia.15 In the meanwhile, the majority of the Jewish political currents that existed in Lith- uania when the war broke out could be characterised, as was pointed out earlier, as pro-Russian, i.e., currents, which sought to reform rather than break up the Empire. In other words, the programmes of the Jewish political parties contained neither historical nor ethnographic autonomy for Lithuania, nor an independent Lithuanian state. True, the fi rst signs of more serious interest in other national groups in the country appeared in 1914-1915: there were politicians who in a political sense began identifying them-

12 Ibidem, pp. 29, 43, 49; MICHAŁ RÖMER: Diary, entry of 18(31).08.1914, in: LMAVB RS, f. 138, b. 2230, l. 189. 13 RÖMER, Lietuva karo akivaizdoje, pp. 221-224; LOPATA, pp. 46-51; MIKNYS, Vilnius, pp. 118- 119. 14 A.K.: Walka o Wilno [Fight for Vilnius], in: Głos Polski 16 (1915). 15 MICHAŁ RÖMER: Diary, entries of 19.11.1914 (02.12.1914), 28.02.1915 (13.03.1915), in: LMAVB RS, f. 138, b. 2230, l. 299, 400; MIKNYS, Vilnius, p. 117.

49 selves in one way or another with Lithuania, and not Russia; in 1914, the ﬁ rst volume of the almanac Lite (Lithuania) was published in Yiddish, later the newspaper Nash krai [Our Land] began its publication in Russian in which what was referred to as “the Jewish Street” was acquainted with the history, culture and political life of Lithuanians and Belarusians.16 In 1915, this tradition was continued by the periodical publication in Yiddish called Di vokh [The Week], which among other things joined in on the discussion about Vilnius. In the 1915 discussion, among the Lithuanian Viltis [Hope], the Polish Głos Polski [Voice of Poland] and Vecherniaia gazeta [Evening Newspaper] published in Russian and edited by Belarusian activist Anton Luckievič , Di vokh took a position similar to that of the Belarusian one: none of the national groups should appropriate Vilnius; the ethnic composition of the population of the city clearly showed that there was no dominating group and in any case one should not forget the “Jewish colour” among the “national colours” of the city because the Jews, according to the ofﬁ cial 1897 data, accounted for 40.9 per cent of the city’s residents.17

The German Occupation

The residents of Lithuania experienced what war is in the summer of 1915 when the Lithuanian provinces turned into a battleﬁ eld. By October, the German Army that went on the offensive in June had occupied nearly all of the lands inhabited by Lithuanians. With their administrative solutions in the occupied territory the Germans, most probably without having thought about it, seemed to have slipped the idea to the Lith- uanians about a possible scenario of the realisation of statehood or at least a hypothetic space for Lithuanian statehood: on 4 September 1915, a special territorial unit called Ober Ost was established in the occupied territory of the Russian Empire. Its territory encompassed the ethnic lands of the Lithuanians and Belarusians and a part of the ethnic lands of Latvians, with the borders resembling the contours of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This encouraged allusions to the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1793-1795 and even gave rise to presumptions that the former grave-diggers of the Commonwealth of the Two Nations took into consideration state borders that had been non-existent for more than a hundred years – the Kaiser’s army seemed to have deliberately chosen a line that reminded them of the border of the former state for its stabilised front line.18 On the second day of the German occupation, the Lithuanians received an unexpected slap in the face from the military administration – a proclamation by Chief of the German Military Administration in Vilnius General Traugott von Pfeil to the residents of Vilnius in Polish and German was put up in the city (dated 18 September 1915) in

16 MICHAŁ RÖMER: Diary, entry of 15(28).12.1913 and 23.01.1914 (05.02.1914), in: LMAVB RS, f. 138, b. 2231, l. 352, 391; this problem drew attention of Mindaugas Kvietkauskas: KVIETKAUSKAS, pp. 243-244; STALIŪNAS, Rusų, pp. 161-181. 17 MOYSHE SHALIT: Tsu vemen darf geheren Vilne? [Who is Vilnius to Belong to?], in: Di vokh 21 (1915), pp. 15-17. 18 LOPATA, p. 65.

50 which Vilnius was called “the pearl of the glorious Kingdom of Poland”. At the same time a promise was made that “the German military forces will try to mitigate the severe hardships imposed by the war upon the residents of Poland. In Vilnius as well”19 (the underlining was marked by authors). The reaction of the Lithuanian activists to calling Vilnius “the pearl of the Kingdom of Poland” was as quick as a fl ash – a Lithu- anian delegation was sent to the German Commandant’ Offi ce, which began to explain Germans that Vilnius was a Lithuanian city and its historical capital rather than “the pearl of the Kingdom of Poland”. This demarche was so effective that in the evening of the same day the police stations received the order to tear off that proclamation.20 The proclamation signed by the German General, which had riled the Lithuanians so much, was far from being the offi cial position of Germany with respect to the occupied territory. In occupying the lands of the Russian Empire, Germany (its political elite, to be more precise) had no clear and unifi ed vision about what to do with the people of the occupied lands. In the course of the war, proposals concerning the future of the lands ranged from a reckless annexation and incorporation of the occupied lands to the return of the occupied territories to Russia after the end of the war. Among these visions was a plan to create a satellite block of pro-German states in the annexed territories. This plan was based on an attempt to use national movements in the Russian Empire, which dreamed about embodying their own visions of a nation state or at least of cultural autonomy, for the interests of the German Empire.21 These hesitations were quite clearly seen in the spring of 1916 when the attitudes of the German military and civil authorities diverged towards the future of the Lithuanian lands as well as that of Vilnius. German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, who planned to push Russia towards peace talks, started popularizing the idea of Po- land as a buffer state, in whose territory Vilnius was to appear. The German military administration disapproved of this and sought to keep control of Ober Ost. The military administration sought to undermine Poland’s infl uence in Ober Ost by strengthening the infl uence of other national communities as a counterbalance. It is not surprising that the pro-Polish Chief of the Vilnius Military Board Beckerath22 soon lost his post, and the Lithuanian activists received a request from the military administration to prepare a declaration that presented a vision for Lithuania’s future. However, it was added that the vision of Lithuania could be developed only by seeing it within the system of the

19 Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, p. 62. 20 KLIMAS, pp. 26-27. 21 LOPATA, pp. 17-18. 22 Beckerath thought that “apart from a strong admixture of the Jewish element, the city of Vilnius is purely Polish”. It seemed to him “that it was not only a quantitative advantage of the Poles but also their political and economic inﬂ uence that was not evaluated in Vil- nius”. Though he agreed that “there was no need to belittle the Lithuanian movement”, he considered the Lithuanian National Movement to be weak and offered the Germans to base themselves on the Poles. True, this domination of the Poles seemed dangerous to him so he proposed that it should be neutralised by taking advantage of the existing “largest contrapo- sition” between the Poles on the one hand, and the Lithuanians, Jews and Belarusians, on the other hand, with the Germans defending “the rights of the Lithuanians and the Jews against violations on the part of the Poles”: Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, pp. 70-73.

51 The representatives of the Šiauliai district at the Conference of Lithuanians in Vilnius. 1917. CAM. NML.

The Presidium and Secretariat of the Conference of Lithuanians. Sitting from the left: Peliksas Bugailiškis, Kazimieras Bizauskas, Kazimieras Šaulys, Justinas Staugaitis, Jonas Basanavičius, Steponas Kairys, Antanas Smetona, Jonas Viliešis, Povilas Dogelis, Juozas Paknys, Jurgis Šaulys, Mykolas Biržiška, Juozas Stankevičius, Petras Klimas. Vilnius. 18-22.09.1917. NML

52 Central European states that was being designed by Germany.23 The Lithuanian activists tried to receive guarantees from the Germans by setting their own demands, among which was, according to the words of Klimas, “entry to the sea” and “with Vilnius as its centre”.24 The Germans were in no hurry to give guarantees. Starting in 1916, when the German authorities understood that their policy in the Kingdom of Poland failed to give the anticipated results, they started looking for other possibilities for a political model of the region and “discovered” the Lithuanians with their project of a nation state.25 With the help of the occupation administration, a conference of the representatives of the Lithuanian society was convened in Vilnius on 22 September 1917, which elected the Council of Lithuania and thus gave priority to a Lithuanian model for the development of the region rather than to a Polish or Pol- ish-Belarusian one. 26

Vilnius in the new/old political visions of Lithuanians

Despite these ﬂ uctuations in Germany’s policy, from the autumn of 1915 to the end of 1918 it was Berlin that was a potential ally and whose assistance Lithuanian politicians could expect in seeking to implement the most important aim of Lithuanian Nation- alism. An independent Lithuania within its ethnographic boundaries with its capital in Vilnius was mentioned in all of most important statements made by Lithuanians to the occupation authorities, as well as decisions of conferences of Lithuanian political activists held abroad or declarations of independence (on 11 December 1917, accompanied by a statement about the eternal union of the Lithuanian State with the German Empire, or on 16 February 1918 when the re-establishment of the independent state was announced without mentioning any ties with other states).27 The question of the capital was especially accentuated after the 16 February Declaration. When publicising the text of the Declaration of Lithuania’s Independence in the 19 February 1918 issue of the newspaper Lietuvos aidas [Echo of Lithuania] the news that the independence was being re-established “with the capital in VILNIUS” was specially highlighted by putting it in larger print. During the war, the arguments that were presented by different Lithuanian political currents on different occasions about Vilnius belonging to Lithuania remained in essence the same as those expressed by the Lithuanian intelligentsia during the period of Tsarist Russian rule. Most often the Lithuanians indicated that Vilnius was the historic capital of Lithu- ania. In 1917, one of the most active players of the Vilnius Lithuanians, Biržiška , still considered Vilnius to be the ancient, true capital of Lithuania where “its rulers lived,

23 LOPATA, p. 82. 24 KLIMAS, p. 111. 25 TAUBER, pp. 67-74. 26 See the following section. 27 At that time there were few followers of the creation of the capital of Lithuania/Lithuanians or at least the centre of national movement in Kaunas: KLIMAS, p. 128.

53 the Parliament, the Supreme Court Tribunal worked, politics, culture and the affairs of political life were concentrated.”28 Historical continuity had to be testifi ed to also to a certain degree by the creation of a Lithuania with a monarchic structure of governance which was subordinate to Germany in 1918, as there were plans that a representative of the Württemberg dynasty, Wilhelm von Urach, would become King of Lithuania Mindaugas II. As earlier, the best material symbol of that tie between historic and modern Lithua- nia was the above-mentioned city icon – Gediminas Castle. The same issue of Lietuvos aidas, which published the 16 February 1918 Declaration, printed the allegoric sketch Amžių balsai [Voices of the Centuries] by Juozas Pajaujis, in which, when speaking about “famous Gediminas Castle standing in the capital of Lithuania” the idea of the state’s sovereignty was tied to the tradition of Lithuanian statehood – “the spirit of powerful Gediminas”, with Gediminas Castle in Vilnius becoming the most expressive symbol of that tradition of statehood.29 An equally important argument by Lithuanians was also the ethnographic principle that had been used by Lithuanians already before the war. Following this principle, Lithuanian politicians stated that Vilnius was undoubtedly within the composition of ethnographic Lithuania, i.e., within the composition of a territory where the majority of the inhabitants were Lithuanians by origin. Vilnius was undoubtedly not only a constituent part of the Lithuanian “national body” but also its centre: most often, when speaking about Vilnius, Lithuanian intelligentsia used the metaphor of a heart. Hence, taking away Vilnius amounted to “uprooting the heart”, Biržiška wrote.30 Li- etuvos aidas, which was an offi cial publication of the Council of Lithuania and started to be issued on 6 September 1917, provided information to its readers that Vilnius was the capital of the Lithuanian nation state beginning with its fi rst issues. Of course, this idea was explained in an indirect manner but one that consistently proved the Lithua- nian character of Vilnius and underlined that Lithuanians were the real autochthons of Vilnius, while the Poles were newcomers or local inhabitants that had been Polonised. The apparent Polishness of Vilnius was “unmasked”, for example, upon reminding the people of Michał Baliński’s Opisanie statystyczne miasta Wilna [Statistical Description of the City of Vilnius] in 1835 where he wrote that “in taking stock of the Lithuanians, the Jews, the Russians and the Germans left out the Poles because, according to him, the number of Poles, like that of other foreign nations in Vilnius, is so small that it was not worth giving them a separate place in the statistical table”. Lithuanian activists recognised that the dominant use of Polish and Russian among the masses “could raise

28 M. SK.: Vilnius, in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.09.1917, 25.09.1917. 29 J. PAJAUJIS: Amžių balsai [Voices of the Centuries], in: Lietuvos aidas from 19.02.1918. About historical argumentation also see: Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, pp. 457-460; L.G.: Dėl Vilniaus [As Concerns Vilnius], in: Tėvynės sargas from 11.10.1918; Dėl ko Vilnius priklauso Lietuvai? [Why does Vilnius Belong to Lithuania?], in: Tėvynės sargas from 23.10.1918. 30 M. SK.: Vilnius, in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.09.1917, 25.09.1917. Other cases of the use of this metaphor: JUOZAS TUMAS: Vilniaus reikšmė Lietuvai [Signiﬁ cance of Vilnius to Lith- uania], in: Lietuvos aidas from 02.10.1918; L. G.: Dėl Vilniaus [As Concerns Vilnius], in: Tėvynės sargas from 11.10.1918.

54 certain doubts” about the Lithuanian character of the city, however they argued that this was a “denationalised Lithuanian element”.31 As before, the Lithuanian intelligentsia clearly understood that it was dangerous to apply the right of national self-determination in Vilnius and the Vilnius region because the results of such a referendum were likely to be unfavourable to the national project of Lithuanians.32 The Lithuanian Christian Democratic press, in presenting the arguments concerning why “Vilnius cannot be torn away from Lithuania” fi rst of all, as befi tted the Christian Party, underlined the signifi cance of Vilnius to Lithuania’s Catholics: “From times of old Vilnius was a religious centre of Lithuania”. It was reminded that the whole history of the Catholic Church in Lithuania was closely related to that city, that the sanctities most important to Lithuanian Catholics were situated in that city: the Gate of Dawn, which “the whole of Lithuania regarded as the supreme sanctuary of its nation”, the coffi n of St. Casimir, the patron of Lithuania, Vilnius Cavalry which had been visited by the crows of pilgrims from the remotest corners of Lithuania for years.33 Lithuanian politicians also remembered the role of Vilnius as the economic, administrative, and trade centre of the country.34 During the Great War several new albeit inessential arguments appeared in the rhetorical arsenal of Lithuanians, which substan- tiated Vilnius belonging to Lithuania: at the beginning of the 20th century, it was in this city that the Great Seimas of Vilnius convened, the centre for the Lithuanian National Movement was created there; furthermore, Vilnius “has been the centre of Lithuanian national culture since olden times”, the press wrote about the traditions of writing, printing and science in that city, as well as the largest concentration of the national intelligentsia.35 It stands to reason that such argumentation could be effective in the process of the nationalisation of the masses when the idea of Vilnius, as the capital of modern Lithuania, was being implanted in the masses, however, it could not persuade the forces competing for this city: other national groups, the Poles, in particular, could present none the less convincing stories about the signifi cance of this city to their national culture or their national movement.

31 Lenkų raštas į Jo Ekscelenciją Vokietijos Kanclerį [A Letter of the Poles to his Excellency Chancellor of Germany], in: Lietuvos aidas from 18.09.1917; Lietuvių raštas į Jo Ekscel- enciją Vokietijos Kanclerį [A Letter of the Lithuanians to his Excellency Chancellor of Ger- many], in: Lietuvos aidas from 20.09.1917, 22.09.1917. 32 P. K L. [PETRAS KLIMAS]: Etnograﬁ nio dėsnio reikšmė [Importance of the Ethnographic Prin- ciple], in: Lietuvos aidas from 04.12.1917; EIDINTAS/LOPATA, pp. 73, 108. 33 Dėl ko Vilnius priklauso Lietuvai [Why does Vilnius Belong to Lithuania?], in: Tėvynės sargas from 23.10.1918. The same arguments are also found in another publication of other than Christian Democratic press: M. SK.: Vilnius, in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.09.1917, 25.09.1917. 34 JUOZAS TUMAS: Vilniaus reikšmė Lietuvai [Signiﬁ cance of Vilnius to Lithuania], in: Lietuvos aidas from 02.10.1918; Dėl ko Vilnius priklauso Lietuvai? [Why does Vilnius Belong to Lithuania?], in: Tėvynės sargas from 23.10.1918; Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, pp. 457- 460. 35 Dėl ko Vilnius priklauso Lietuvai? [Why does Vilnius Belong to Lithuania?], in: Tėvynės sargas from 23.10.1918.

55 As before the Great War, the persistent efforts of Lithuanian politicians to base their argumentation on the so-called ethnographic principle are not diffi cult to understand. The 1916 census of the population conducted by the occupation authorities that had to determine the number of the inhabitants according to their native language was not favourable for Lithuanians. In Vilnius, a total of 70,629 residents (50.15 per cent) indicated Polish as their native tongue, and 61,265 (43.5 per cent) people said it was Yiddish, 3,699 (2.6 per cent) residents stated it to be Lithuanian, 2,030 (1.46 per cent) said it was Russian, and 1,917 (1.36 per cent) people said it was Belarusian. Hence, the percentage of the Lithuanians essentially remained unchanged. One of the Lithuanian leaders, Klimas , complained in his diary that the Poles falsifi ed the data of the census and interpreted it in their favour. He explained how the Poles who made the census, having asked Lithuanian girls if they were Catholics and when the latter confi rmed that they were, recorded them as Polish. When the girls stared and stated that they were Lithuanians, the Poles retorted as follows: “Now you say you are Catholics, now you say you are Lithuanians, you do not know what you are yourselves”.36 There is no doubt that every national community regarded the census as a chance to present its unquestionable proof of its dominance in the city, therefore during the census it sought as far as it could to increase its community statistically. That was the question of the city’s belonging for struggling nationalisms – it was during those days the above-mentioned Klimas wrote the following entry in his diary: “Vilnius started buzzing from top to bottom: is this Poland, or Lithuania here…”.37 However, no matter how much Vilnius’ Lithuanians criticised the non-objectiveness of that census, it bore witness to the fact that despite the intense activity of the Lithuanian intelligentsia in the historical capital and the refugees that fl ooded the city at the beginning of the war, the situation in essence had remained unchanged since the 1897 universal census of the Russian Empire: the Lithuanian-speaking people barely accounted for 2.6 per cent. Therefore the activists of Vilnius’s Lithuanians again, as at the turn of the 20th centuries, put in much effort to change the situation in the city. The Lithuanian activists of Vilnius took steps to achieve that a Lithuanian newspaper should appear in Vilnius and asked the German authorities to move the editorial board of the only Lithuanian newspaper – called Dabartis [The Present] – from Kaunas to “Vilnius, the spiritual centre of Lithuania” and give them permission to establish a new newspaper in Vilnius.38 Neither the fi rst nor the second request was granted. It was especially unpleasant news for the Lithuanians, having in mind the fact that from 15 February 1916 the newspaper Homan (The Voice) was issued twice a week in Belaru- sian in Vilnius, which, irrespective of the strict censorship of the authorities, fulfi lled the mission of consolidating the Belarusian community.39 This failure made the Lithu- anian intelligentsia become even more active in Vilnius: they encouraged the creation and functioning of Lithuanian societies. On the eve of 1917, 12 Lithuanian societies and their branches operated in Vilnius: the Lithuanian Society for the Support of War

36 KLIMAS, p. 98. 37 Ibidem, p. 97. 38 Ibidem, p. 83. 39 GIMŽAUSKAS, p. 47.

56 Jonas Basanavičius with the dependents of the hostel maintained by the Committee of Lithuanians in Vilnius, at Labdarių (Charity) St. 2a. 1917. NML

By the folk cafeteria maintained by the Committee of Lithuanians in Vilnius on Orphans (now Subačius) St. 26. 1917. NML

57 Victims, the Lithuanian Scientifi c Society, the Lithuanian Educational Society Rytas [Morning], and the Lithuanian Art Society, Vilnius Rūta Club, and the Saint Zita Soci- ety among others. The calendar published by Marija Šlapelienė’s bookshop in Vilnius listed another 15 “Lithuanian addresses” in Vilnius: the Lithuanian co-operative Laimė [Happiness], Jurašaičiai Photography Studio, Dr. Domaševičius Clinic, the Lithuanian Canteen, M. Kukta’s Print Shop, Mačys’ tailor/dress-making shop, Rodavičius Phar- macy, and M. Putvinskaitė-Žmuidzinavičienė Dentistry.40 Starting in 1915 there was a Lithuanian high school, and several Lithuanian children’s homes operating in Vilnius. These statistics of the Lithuanian world in Vilnius did not refl ect the real infl uence of Lithuanians in the city. At the same time there were four Polish high schools, 8 progy- mnasiums and 30 primary schools that operated in Vilnius, and fi ve teachers’ training colleges and teacher’s courses training pedagogues. The Liutnia Society and amateur theatres operated there, and there were plenty of different cultural initiatives.41 When comparing the Polish and Lithuanian cultural life and educational establishments in the city of Vilnius, the activity of the Lithuanians seemed much less intense. The Lithuani- an activists in Vilnius assessed their position and possibilities soberly, as compared to those of the Poles who were considered to be their most serious rivals; however, they had never lost hope of “re-Lithuanianising” the city. Campaigns of symbolic appropriation of space gave no tangible results: the initiative of the Council of Lithuania to plant a Lithuanian fl ag on Gediminas’ castle was not incarnated (at fi rst Lithuanians themselves failed to avail of the opportunity provided by the Germans, and later the Germans allowed planting of the Lithuanian fl ag only beside its German counterpart and Lithuanian activists were not fascinated by such possibility), and the attempt to substitute plates of street names with those in the Lith- uanian language also failed as the Germans resisted and in addition, Polish activists started blotting Lithuanian plates.42 The Lithuanian intelligentsia of Vilnius thought that the Lithuanian community of the city had a chance to grow, just patience and effort were needed and the city would be in the hands of Lithuanians. They imagined that the Polish/Belarusian/Russian identity of the masses was perfunctory and “mobile” so it was not diffi cult to turn this identity into a Lithuanian one. For example, the activists of Lithuanian Catholics based that on their personal experience of work in Lithuanian orphanages where the children who did not speak Lithuanian started speaking it in just a few months. The Lithuanian orphanages of Vilnius educated conscious young Lithuanians, residents of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. A correspondent for the Tėvynės sargas [Homeland Guardian] described his impressions of a New Year’s Eve celebration held in January 1918 at the Great Orphanage for Lithuanian Children in the Antakalnis neighbourhood maintained by the Lithuanian Committee for the Support of War Refugees as follows:

A twelve-year old boy girded with a national sash went on the stage and with a raised bold voice recited the poem Vilnius. Everybody heard – this is our capital [...] founded by Gedi-

40 1917 metams Lietuvos kalendorius, pp. 28-29. 41 PUKSZTO, pp. 60, 67-75. 42 KLIMAS, pp. 265-266.

58 minas . Everybody heard the name of famous Vytautas [...] “it is here a ﬁ ght for existence is being fought” – the boy ﬁ nished the poem. Everybody understood what the matter was – the spirit of powerful Vytautas was awakened in the hearts of all those present. There is no end to the applause. Everybody called for encore. The boy went on stage and again, for the second time, recited the poem.43

Institutional assistance was needed to make this campaign of nationalising the masses a success, and here attention was directed towards the authorities of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Vilnius. It was in the summer of 1917 that the seat of the Bish- op of Vilnius became vacated.44 Lithuanians needed a Lithuanian bishop in Lithuania, both as a person who was able to turn the most infl uential social institution, which was the Church, towards the Lithuanianisation of the Vilnius Region, and as a person who by means of his symbolic capital was able to help take possession of the capital of Lithuania.45 The Lithuanian public fi gures, having taken advantage of this situation, unambiguously stated that they desired to have a Bishop who would conform to the hopes and expectations of Lithuanian Nationalism – “to restore their nation state” a precondition for the embodiment of which was the fact “that the Church authorities, especially the Bishop of the capital of Lithuania, would not get in the way and hinder but also represent the interests of the Church, would act in unison with other leaders of the Lithuanian Church and be able to adapt himself to the general policy of Lithuania”. Lithuanian activists asked that a Lithuanian be appointed the new Bishop of Vilnius “who would restore order with a fi rm hand”.46 Germany, which had occupied the territory of the diocese, supported the Lithuanians in their fi ght for the seat of the Bishop of Vilnius. They hoped that if a Lithuanian became bishop, he would be loyal to Germany and would block the way of Polish clericalism, or at least Polish clericalism would acquire an enemy worthy of itself – Lithuanian clericalism – thanks to a Lithuanian bishop. Therefore the Germans favoured the nationally motivated candidates proposed by the Lithuanians. In August 1917, through the mediation of the Germans, news reached the Vatican that Lithuanian activists wished that the Bishop of Vilnius be chosen from the following priests: Jonas Mačiulis, Konstantinas Olšauskas and Vladas Mironas. Soon a fourth candidate appeared in Dambrauskas-Jakštas. 47 All the candidates were active participants in the Lithuanian National Movement. The Germans even helped the Council of Lithuania with their administrative levers of power in the autumn of 1917 in collecting signatures of the Lithuanian clergy under a petition to the Vatican, asking

43 P.D.: Naujųjų Metų įspūdžiai [Impressions of the New Year], in: Tėvynės sargas from 17.01.1918. 44 On 25.07.1917 Bishop of Vilnius Edward von der Ropp, who could not fulﬁ l his duties from 1907 because he was deported by the Russian authorities to the Vitebsk Province, was appointed Archbishop of Mogilev. 45 In 1918, the Lithuanian press based the necessity to have the Lithuanian Bishop in Vilnius on the need to have pastoral care in Lithuanian and on the fact that “Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, must have a Lithuanian Bishop, a real citizen of the Lithuanian State”: S-TYS: Dėl Vilniaus vyskupo [As Concerns Vilnius Bishop], in: Lietuvos aidas from 14.09.1918. 46 Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, pp. 154-155. 47 GÓRSKI, p. 140.

59 it to appoint a Lithuanian Bishop in Vilnius.48 However, in 1918, the Holy See decided on a compromise – General Superior of the Marian Order Jurgis Matulaitis, who was appointed Bishop of Vilnius.

Vilnius in the plans of non-Lithuanian Lithuania

The Citizens Committee, which was established at the beginning of the German occupation and united the multinational intelligentsia of democratic views, continued the tradition of the krajowcy by declaring its aspiration to restore a historic Lithuania, whose capital would naturally be Vilnius.49 However this initiative did not acquire any sturdier institutional framework. Though there were people among the activists represented different national groups who spoke out for the creation of a state in the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, there were other territorial concepts that had more followers. The idea of restoring historic Lithuania was the most acceptable one to the leaders of the Belarusian National Movement, who clearly understood weakness of this movement. However during the war the idea of a nation state matured for them. On 25 March 1918, the independence of the Belarusian People’s Republic (BPR) was declared, and the Belarusian activists in projecting the space of their state had also aimed at Vilni- us – this reﬂ ected itself in the very Act of the Declaration of Independence. In April 1918, BPR activists demanded that the Germans preserve Vilnius for Belarus, which “now is the centre of Belarus’s intellectual activity”.50 The Belarusian activists, like the Lithuanians, saw Vilnius as their capital, referring to it as their “old capital” in their territorial claims, adding that Vilnius was not only the capital of Belarusians but also “the centre of movement of the Belarusians”51 and remained the main cultural centre of Belarusians.52 At that time, even under the conditions of the German occupation, a strong pro-Rus- sian geopolitical orientation prevailed on “Jewish Street”, which both the Folkists and the Bund followed. A pro-German orientation prevailed among the Zionists. Howev- er, the answer of the majority of the followers of both pro-Russian and pro-German orientations to the question in 1917, and especially in 1918 about who Vilnius should belong to, either Lithuania or Poland, was or would have given an answer that it should belong to Lithuania.53 In 1918, several articles appeared in the only pro-Zionist daily

48 ŽADEIKIS, pp. 264-268. 49 Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, p. 63; LOPATA, pp. 51-54. 50 GIMŽAUSKAS, p. 68. 51 KHOMICH, p. 106. 52 Gistoryia belaruskai, p. 322. 53 Within this context attention is to be paid to the already mentioned appeal of December 1915 publicised in the Lithuanian, Polish, Belarusian and Yiddish, which urged that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania be restored on a democratic basis. Historian Marcos Silber, basing himself on the testimony of Tsemah Szabad, states that the Jews did not sign that document because of the very clear orientation declared in the document towards the creation of an

60 published in Lithuania in Yiddish called Letste Nayes [The Latest News] that ﬁ rmly declared this position.54 In June 1918, a statement made by Olshvanger sounded especially categorical: “If a tendency arose that Vilnius could go to Poland then we would have to mobilise all our Jews so that the Jerusalem of Lithuania would be defended, which is as dear to us as Warsaw and Krakow are to the Poles.”55 This position of Lithu- ania’s Jews was determined for the large part by the Jewish-Polish relations. The Polish anti-Jewish policy in the Vilnius City Municipality or during the elections to Russia’s Dumas was still remembered on “Jewish Street” very well.56 Finally, it was reckoned that a smaller and weaker Lithuania would be more inclined to take into consideration the requirements of the Jews than a strong Poland, which was noted for its antisemitic moods already at the beginning of the 20th century. True, the majority of the Jewish politicians spoke for the project of a much broader territory rather than ethnographic Lithuania. A larger Lithuania was a more acceptable option to the Jews rather for pragmatic purposes: there would be more Jews in a larger Lithuania and such a state would be more heterogeneous from a national point of view, hence, they believed in Lithuania of nationalities rather than in a nation state of Lithuania. Furthermore, this kind of Lithuania would be more suitable for the economic activity of the Jews. The fact that the Zionists joined the Council of Lithuania at the end of 1918 did not mean any change in principled positions of either of the parties: the Zionists hoped that the Council of Lithuania would seek to create a Lithuania of nationalities where all national groups would enjoy equal rights, while Lithuanian politicians would continue to give priority to a nation state in which the Lithuanians would be a dominating group. True, there were Jewish politicians, especially those who acted in Kaunas province, who supported the project of ethnographic Lithuania with the capital in Vilnius; however, they constituted a minority on “Jewish Street”.57 As before the war however, Polish Nationalism was the main opponent of a Lithu- anian Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius. At the beginning of 1916, the Polish Com- mittee was created on the fundamentals of the Polish Committee for the Relief of War Victims that had been operating since 1914. At one time, this Committee was also a charity organisation and a kind of “roof” under which the representatives of all Polish

independent state: SILBER, pp. 126-127. True, M. Silber did not try to consider where the translation of that document into Yiddish came from. We can say almost with conﬁ dence that the translation could have been made by only one of the Jewish activists. Hence, if said Jewish politicians really did not sign that document, they most probably intended to, at least at the beginning. 54 A perfect illustration could be the article by Moyshe Shalit who participated in said 1915 debates, which were printed in several issues of the Letste nayes [The Latest News]: MOYSHE SHALIT: Tsu vemen darf gehern Vilne? [Who does Vilnius have to Belong to?], in: Letste nayes 230 and 232 (1918). 55 Yerushalayim de-Lite in gefar! [Jerusalem of Lithuania in Danger!], in: Letste nayes 138 (1918). Authorship is indicated together with the article’s translation into Russian: LMAVB RS, f. 255, b. 929, l. 51. 56 Dr YAKOV VYGODSKI: Iz vilne a poylishe ider a litvishe shtot? [Is Vilnius a Polish or Lithua- nian City?], in: Letste nayes 144 (1918); BENDIKAITĖ, p. 172. 57 For more about it see: SIRUTAVIČIUS/STALIŪNAS.

61 political movements in Vilnius rallied. Moreover, from March 1915, the Polish Mili- tary Organisation [Polish: Polska Organizacja Wojskowa, POW] operated secretly in Vilnius, at the end of 1916 patriotic Polish women organizations were established, and the Polish Scouting Organization [Polish: Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego] organisation operated.58 On 5 November 1916, the Germans announced the re-establishment of the Polish state; however, they were in no hurry to mark its borders. Within a month, the Provisional Council of the State of the Polish Kingdom (Tymczasowa Rada Stanu) was established, which started operating in January 1917. That gave a powerful impulse to strengthen the propaganda spread by the Polish activists for Lithuania’s attachment to Poland, which was already being done. On 1 November 1916, the Polish Committee functioning in Vilnius unanimously expressed the desire that Vilnius, together with Lithuania, should be joined to Poland.59 Polish Nationalism became especially strong after the February Revolution. The majority of Polish politicians nurtured an ambitious plan to restore the state in the historic territory of the former Polis-Lithuanian Com- monwealth, ignoring the political visions of other national movements, including the Lithuanian one. On 19-22 May 1917, a declaration of almost all the Polish political parties was signed in Warsaw, which declared that political movements “demanded on behalf of society of the restored Polish State an independent state life for the old lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well” and stated that “Poland will unconditionally seek to restore old ties with independent Lithuania and is ﬁ rmly convinced that after the nations residing in Lithuania – the Lithuanians, Poles, Belarusians, and both states voluntarily and peacefully have united, national, cultural and economic development of all social strata will be ensured”.60 Seconding this statement, the Polish activists of Lithuania (representatives authorised by all Lithuanian Polish political currents) submitted a memorandum to the Chancellor of Germany at the of May 1917 which underlined that in the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was under the Germans, the Lithuanian Poles were “a local, old element of the culture of the land” and “the Lithuanians, irrespective of their name, have no more rights to Lithuania than the Poles or the Belarusians”, having reminded the Chancellor of the data of the 1916 census conducted by the Germans in Vilnius. The authors of the memorandum tried to prove the decisive and leading role of the Polish element in that territory, and paternally stated that they thought that the aim of the Lithuanian Poles “to unite themselves in the state with Poland” would be the most useful for other nations residing in the space too. It was underlined in the memorandum that “Vilnius, the capital of that land, has a purely Polish character”.61

58 PUKSZTO, pp. 38-39, 41-43. 59 Ibidem, pp. 38-39. 60 Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje, pp. 126-128. 61 Ibidem, pp. 134-137.

62 III A Time of Changes: 1918-1923

The Loss of the Capital

After the revolution that took place in Germany on 9 November 1918 and turned Ger- many into a republic, the immediately created soldiers’ councils (Soldatenraten) took power in its army. On 10 November, German soldiers in Vilnius took power too and established the Soldiers’ Council. Though this takeover of power in Vilnius, according to the press, occurred “calmly and orderly”,1 Lithuanian activists feared that the Sol- diers’ Council, which sympathised with the leftists, could turn into a tool in the hands of the Bolsheviks. The State Council of Lithuania in Vilnius was an authority without power – it had neither a coercive apparatus to maintain order, nor the support of the majority of the population, therefore when the only support of power of the Lithuanian authorities, which were the German military authorities, were replaced by the Soldiers’ Council, the situation became unpredictable. On 10 November, the State Council of Lithuania even considered if it was worth moving from Vilnius to some “quieter place” to work, for example to Kaunas, which would be not only safer but also more comfortable from the point of view of communication while creating a Lithuanian administration in the country. Vladas Stašinskas, who took part in the session, stated the following: “if we withdraw from Vilnius we shall never get it back [...] Withdrawal from Vilnius is capitulation within the entire Lith[uanian] question.” Subscribing to his opinion, Jonas Yčas added “that there is no Lithuania without Vilnius”.2 The State Council of Lithuania remained in Vilnius, having made a decision to try to strengthen its positions by establishing relations with the Soldiers’ Council with the help of the leftists. It seemed to the Lithuanian elite that it was in Vilnius that the Lithuanian question was being decided upon, and even the symbolic governance of this city was becoming a dramatic condition for the existence of Lithuanian statehood. The State Council of Lithuania also understood perfectly well that it was its existence in Vilnius that was the only real guarantee of establishing a Lithuanian inﬂ uence in this city. On 11 November 1918, the State Council of Lithuania approved a Government headed by Voldemaras . On 13 November, the daily Lietuvos aidas [Echo of Lithuania]

1 Atsitikimai Vilniuje [Incidents in Vilnius], in: Tėvynės sargas from 15.11.1918, p. 11. 2 EIDINTAS/LOPATA, pp. 385-386, 465-470.

63 published a proclamation by the State Council of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania to the citizens of Lithuania, in which it was announced that the Government of Lithuania had been formed, and people were urged to become mobilised in order to defend “Vilnius, the heart of Lithuania”.3 While debating the text of this proclamation, reproaches were expressed by some members of the State Council of Lithuania, saying that the “matter of defending Vilnius” was accentuated too much, the proclamation was only addressed to Lithuanians, forgetting national minorities, and that the text itself was too emotional. Smetona fi red back at these reproaches, saying that the appeal did not need any “cold logical exposition” because its goal was to “stir up the people”.4 Hence, the Lithuanian elite thought that the slogan of defending Vil- nius, the capital of Lithuania, could be effective in mobilising its citizens to defend the sovereignty of the state. Together with the above-mentioned proclamation, a Provision- al Constitution of the Lithuanian State was declared, which established Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania.5 On 14 November, at an offi cial session of the State Council, Prime Minister Vold- emaras read a declaration of the Government, which testifi ed to the belief in the right of self-determination of the nations and the omnipotence of a future Peace Conference. It was believed that the Peace Conference would determine the state borders, and the international community, which respected the right of self-determination of the nations, would guarantee the country’s sovereignty. A spirit of pacifi sm permeated the government’s declaration, stating that Lithuania would need neither an army nor that it would go to war with anyone, and that neighbouring countries did not intend to attack Lithuania.6 This determined the fact that it was only on 23 November that an order was signed for the creation of the First Infantry Regiment, though the volunteers had already started gathering in Vilnius in the middle of October. At the request of the Ger- mans, however, the formation of the regiment was moved from the capital to Alytus. The Germans stated that order in the capital was kept by the Soldiers’ Council.7 Contemporaries of the time characterised the situation in Vilnius at the end of No- vember as growing turmoil. The real power was in the hands of the German army, but the army itself was already falling into growing anarchy.8 In the presence of growing turmoil, the Lithuanians celebrated one victory in Vilnius in December – Lithuanian Ju- rgis Matulaitis took up the seat of the Bishop of Vilnius. The Lithuanian press assessed this as a symbolic confi rmation of recognising Vilnius as belonging to the Lithuanians and a great political victory.9 The celebrations of the ingress of the Bishop of Vilnius

3 Lietuvos piliečiai! Lietuvos valstybės tarybos atsišaukimas [Citizens of Lithuania! An appeal of the State Council of Lithuania], in: Lietuvos aidas from 13.11.1918. 4 EIDINTAS/LOPATA, pp. 389-390. 5 Lietuvos valstybės laikinosios konstitucijos pamatiniai dėsniai [Fundamental Laws of the Provisional Constitution of the Lithuanian State], in: Lietuvos aidas from 13.11.1918. 6 RUDIS, pp. 22-23. 7 LESČIUS, pp. 70-74. 8 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis. 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji, pp. 181-191. 9 B. ZKS.: Naujo Vilniaus vyskupo reikšmė [The Signiﬁ cance of the New Bishop of Vilnius], in: Laisvoji Lietuva from 10.12.1918.

64 turned into a contest between the Lithuanian and Polish elite in demonstrating their inﬂ uence in the city, which ended in the occasion that in the end the representatives of the Lithuanian government did not take part in the celebrations at Vilnius Cathedral because, as the Head of the Government Voldemaras stated, the pro-Polish cathedral chapter refused to show due respect to the Lithuanian government during the celebrations and honoured the Polish Committee members with their attention.10 The Lithuani- an activists, however, hoped that the Lithuanian, who had taken up the seat of the Bish- op of Vilnius would become an instrument in their hands in Lithuanianising Vilnius. The Government of Lithuania was not the only one to declare itself the master of Vilnius. After Germany’s capitulation, the fragile balance of powers crumbled and the contest over taking possession of Vilnius became especially bitter. The Polish Commit- tee in Vilnius also declared to be the government of the land. The latter even tried to obtain the permission of the representatives of the German government to create Polish armed self-defence squads. In this way the Government of Poland that was behind the back of the Polish Committee sought to become a real master of the land by force. At a session of the Government of Poland held on 12 December 1918, Prime Minister Jędrzej Edward Moraczewski referred to these tactics as “creating of a fact that had taken place”.11 The Germans, however, did not give permission for this. Taking a look back at December 1918, the leader of the Lithuanian Bolsheviks Vincas Kapsukas noted that there were as many as three governments in Vilnius at that time, but that actually there was no government at all, because the German government was under great distress, the residents of Vilnius hardly supported the State Council of Lithuania, and the Polish Committee, which was supported by Polish society was far from being a government. The Bolsheviks decided to make use of this situation and take power into their hands in Vilnius.12 Indeed, as soon as the news about the revolution that took place in Germany on 9 November reached the leaders of the Bolsheviks in Moscow, they decided to take power in Vilnius immediately, and by force. On 13 November, Soviet Russia announced that it was annulling the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that had been concluded with Ger- many.13 The 5th Vilnius Riﬂ emen Regiment began being formed within the Red Army – most likely it was expected that the name of this regiment would attract nationally motivated Lithuanians “to liberate” Vilnius. The decision of the Germans announced on 14 December to evacuate its army from Vilnius encouraged the Bolsheviks to go public and on 16 December the latter even announced the establishment of the Soviet Republic of Lithuania.14 The Lithuanian Bolsheviks considered Vilnius to be the capital of Soviet Lithuania. They hoped to become established with the help of German soldiers who were in a revolutionary mood, however, the Soldiers Council refused to hand over control of Vilnius to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks became another government

10 JURGIS MATULAITIS, pp. 107-110; Vilniaus vyskupo Jurgio ingresas [The Ingress of George, Bishop of Vilnius], in: Lietuvos aidas from 10.12.1918. 11 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, p. 46. 12 KAPSUKAS, Raštai, vol. 12, pp. 618-620. 13 Lietuvos komunistų, vol. 1, pp. 385-386. 14 KAPSUKAS, Raštai, vol. 12, pp. 618-620; Lietuvos komunistų, vol. 1, pp. 399-400.

65 of Vilnius without power, however the Bolshevik army was marching from Russia to help them. With a threat of Bolshevik invasion increasing, in December 1918, Warsaw offered the Lithuanian governments to defend Vilnius jointly against the Bolsheviks. Lithuania agreed to accept help on the condition that Poland recognise Lithuania’s independence with its capital in Vilnius.15 Poland was not going to recognise Lithuania’s statehood and instead of a reply, news reached the Lithuanian government that Warsaw had been appointing offi cials to the former provinces of Kaunas, Suwałki and Vilnius.16 On 21 December, the Provisional Management Commission for the Region of Northern Lith- uania (Tymczasowa Komisja Rządząca na Okręg Litwy Północnej)17 with Vilnius as its centre, was formed in Warsaw. Attempts by the Lithuanian government to reach an agreement with the Polish Committee in Vilnius during the last days of 1918 ended in failure – it turned out at once that their positions were incompatible: the Lithuanians demanded that the Poles should recognise the Lithuanian state with its capital in Vilnius, however the Poles were not satisfi ed with a position as a loyal national minority; they dreamed about a role as masters of the country and strove for a political union between the Lithuanian and Polish states.18 At the moment critical for the state, on 20-21 December, the highest-ranking representatives of the Lithuanian government left for the West to look for support for the young state and the defence of the capital. Many people considered that trip equal to abandoning a sinking ship. This caused panic in the country, and the Government was hit by a political crisis. Nonetheless, the situation was soon back under control – after the Voldemaras Government resigned on 26 May, Mykolas Sleževičius formed a new Cabinet of Ministers the following day.19 The new Lithuanian government desperately set about organising the defence of the country and preparing for taking over control of the city of Vilnius from the Germans and defending the city against Bolshevik aggression; however, it was evident that this defence would be impossible to organise. It was only on 24 December that the Lithu- anians organised the Commandant’s Offi ce of the city of Vilnius, which had 500 volunteers at its disposal on the eve of 1919, with only a part of them having guns.20 That was the sum total of the Lithuanian armed forces that were able to defend Vilnius. On 31 December, the Germans withdrew from Vilnius, and on the fi rst day of the New Year the Lithuanian Military Commandant Kazys Škirpa saw to it that the Lithuanian fl ag should be hoisted above Gediminas Tower21 – this is how, on the eve of the withdrawal from the capital, the Lithuanian government symbolically reminded the people that it was the master of Vilnius.

15 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 49-50; Šių dienų dokumentai [Today’s Documents], in: Lietuva from 11.01.1919. 16 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, pp. 81-84. 17 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, p. 46. 18 Ibidem, pp. 52-53; GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, p. 85; RĖMERIS, Lietuvos, p. 71. 19 RUDIS, pp. 27-29. 20 LESČIUS, pp. 83-84. 21 STASYS BUTKUS, pp. 97-99.

66 On 2 January, the Government of Lithuania moved from Vilnius to Kaunas, which became the provisional capital. The Representative General of the Government of Lith- uania, Biržiška, stayed in Vilnius. As soon as the Germans, who had routed the Bolshe- viks, withdrew, the Poles took control of Vilnius. On 2 January 1919, on behalf of the Government of Lithuania, Biržiška submitted a protest to General Władysław Wejtko who was in charge of the Polish soldiers against taking possession of the a city of a foreign country by force and the appropriation of power.22 The Poles were masters of the city for a short time only, as two days later Vilnius was occupied by the Bolsheviks. The 5th Vilnius Riﬂ emen Regiment was among the units of the Red Army that marched into the city.23

The capital of the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic (Lit-Bel)

At the end of 1918, Soviet Russia started forming the Soviet republics of Lithuania and Belarus. It was decided in Moscow that the former provinces of Minsk, Smolensk and Grodno would go to Belarus, and that the Kaunas and Vilnius provinces would be left to Lithuania. Joseph Stalin , who took an active part in forming the Soviet republics as the Commissar for National Affairs, stated later that in drawing the Lithuanian-Belaru- sian border, there were heated disputes that arose between the Lithuanian and Belaru- sian Bolsheviks over Vilnius’ belonging to one or the other.24 The establishment of Soviet Republics of Lithuania and Belarus only formally resolved the territorial dispute over Vilnius belonging to one or the other state. Shortly after, an idea was devised in Moscow to unite the Soviet Republics of Lithuania and Belarus, and on 27 February 1919 the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic (Lit-Bel) was founded whose Government was headed by Lithuanian Bolshevik Vincas Kapsukas. Soviet historiography explains the establishment of Lit-Bel as an attempt to concentrate the forces of the Soviet Republics against the aggression of Western imperialism.25 There is an attitude which still prevails that says the external political factor exerted the greatest infl uence on uniting the republics.26 We believe that it is worth listening to the arguments of researchers who state that the afore-said dispute of whom Vilnius belonged to, which was so fi erce that the fi rst Head of the Government of Soviet Belarus Dmitri Schilunovitsch refused to sign a manifesto announcing the establishment of the Soviet Belarusian State, demanding that Vilnius be attached to Belarus, played a very signifi cant role in the establishment of Lit-Bel. Bolsheviks in Moscow, however, who were arbiters in the dispute, hesitated to resolve the dispute over Vilnius in favour of Belarus, fearing that by taking this step it could make Lithua- nian society prejudice against the Soviet regime, which found the question of Vilnius of

22 BIRŽIŠKA, Dėl, pp. 61-62. 23 ŽIUGŽDA, p. 19. 24 KHOMICH, pp. 141-144; KASPARAVIČIUS/LAURINAVIČIUS/LEBEDEVA, p. 234. 25 For more about it see: MALYKHINA/MIKHNIUK. 26 Gistoryia Belarusi, vol. 5, pp. 108-110; LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos, pp. 123-125.

67 great importance.27 Lithuania’s Bolsheviks themselves admitted that from the national point of view, it was especially difﬁ cult to determine the border between Lithuania and Belarus.28 Therefore in creating Lit-Bel and turning Vilnius into its capital, Moscow tried to block the way to possible conﬂ icts over territories between the Lithuanians and Belarusians. One of the leaders of Soviet Russia, Jakov Sverdlov , admitted that the aspiration “to protect the republics against the manifestations of nationalism and chauvinism” became an important motive for uniting the republics”.29 Vilnius becoming the capital of Lit-Bel was a political solution dictated from Mos- cow. Leaders of the Belarusian Bolsheviks actually proposed to turn Minsk into the capital of Lit-Bel, and agreed that Vilnius should become the capital only under pressure from Moscow.30 Judging from the content of the discussions about what city had to become the capital of Lit-Bel, one can make the supposition that the Bolsheviks established the capital in Vilnius, taking into consideration the fact that the city had already the tradition of a historical capital.31 A large group of Lithuanian politicians had remained in Vilnius occupied by the Bolsheviks. It was decided at a meeting of Vilnius Lithuanians that was held on 6 Jan- uary to send a delegation to the Bolsheviks and inform them that Vilnius Lithuanians were not going to block any democratic and social reforms being carried out by the Bolsheviks, however they would remain citizens of the Republic of Lithuania.32 On 9 January, a delegation of Vilnius Lithuanians stated this position to the Head of the Government of Lit-Bel Kapsukas who, in his turn, made the Lithuanian representatives elated by stating that the Bolsheviks also saw Vilnius as Lithuania’s capital and there could be no question about separating Vilnius from Lithuania; however, he added that “Lithuania would be independent in the composition of the Soviet Russia only”.33 The Lithuanian activists who had remained in Vilnius entertained no illusions about the Bolshevik authorities, but they hoped that a loyal attitude toward the Bolsheviks (at the time when the Poles adopted a position of passive resistance) would help the Lithuanians strengthen their positions in the public life of the city and would block the way to a monopolistic entrenchment of other national communities.34 Demonstrating their apparent indifference to politics, the Lithuanian social and cultural activists did not avoid participating in the work of the Bolshevik authorities, provided that the latter strengthened the Lithuanians’ positions in the city of Vilnius. First of all, they took advantage of the situation in the city to expand the network of Lithuanian educational and cultural institutions – beginning with the establishment of schools and ending with the

27 KHOMICH, pp. 160-163. 28 ZIGMAS ANGARIETIS: Lietuvos nepriklausomybė ir susivienijimas su Baltarusija [Lithuania’s Independence and Union with Belarus], in: Komunistas from 16.02.1919. 29 KHOMICH, p. 164. 30 Ibidem, p. 165. 31 IOFFE, pp. 22-23. 32 Žinios [The News], in: Laisvoji Lietuva from 08.01.1919. 33 Vilniuje [In Vilnius], in: Laisvoji Lietuva from 14.01.1919; BIELIAUSKAS, p. 127. 34 BIRŽIŠKA, Dėl, p. 73.

68 project of re-establishing Vilnius University.35 The Lithuanian government also gave their blessing to the tactics of the Lithuanian activists who had stayed in Vilnius “to do Lithuanian work at the institutions of the revolutionary government” but warned them about the hidden dangers of that kind of cooperation”.36 Communicating with the Bolsheviks was not an idyllic undertaking, however the Lithuanian activists took advantage of the Bolsheviks’ regard for educational and cultural work, and some of them even became infl uential persons in the Bolshevik Commisariat for Education, whose fi rst chief was Vaclovas Biržiška . Later Polish activists complained that when Vilnius was under the Bolsheviks “Lithuanian chauvinism simply raged”, and no Polish cultural-educational institution could appear if there was not a corresponding Lithuanian one.37 The Government of Lithuania intended to get the capital of Lithuania back by force, and tried to turn the fact that “Lithuania’s heart Vilnius is in the hands of the enemies” into a factor for mobilising society. Starting at the beginning of 1919, the appeals for mobilisation issued by the Lithuanian authorities that circulated in the province of Lith- uania, which urged people to join the Lithuanian Army voluntarily and liberate “the capital Vilnius from the hands of foreigners” by force.38 The Lithuanian authorities hoped to receive recognition of Lithuania’s statehood together with Vilnius at the Paris Peace Conference to be held on 18 January 1919. The goal of the Lithuanian delegation was to obtain recognition of Lithuania’s independence within the ethnographic boundaries with, as was stated, the most necessary changes of the territories due to some economic reasons, accentuating that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania.39 The Lithuanian delegation, however, had no juridical status at all and could only make use of the right to submit the documents to the Peace Conference, which testifi ed to the political will of Lithuanians. It was underlined in the Lithuanian documents addressed to the Peace Conference that Lithuania is different from Poland, so it had to become a sovereign state. The question of the Polish and Lithuanian statehood differed in essence on the eve of the Conference. If the possibilities for the recognition of Lithuania’s political independence were faint and more on the side of unfavourable, nobody had any doubts about the re-establishment of Poland. The plans of the Polish political elite presented to the Peace Conference contained the aspiration to restore Poland taking into account the borders of the Commonwealth of Two Nations before the partitions in the 18th century correcting the borders of the reborn state, taking into account the new realities, fi rst of all, on the basis of ethnic, and then economic, strategic and military principles. Vilnius was regarded as a city belonging to Poland in all designs of the Polish State, underlin-

35 Ibidem, pp. 105-113. 36 Ibidem, p. 126; Kaunas, sausio 14 d. [Kaunas, 14 January], in: Lietuva from 15.01.1919. 37 [A Memorial about the Economic, Business and Cultural Situation in Vilnius in 1919], in: Biblioteka Publiczna m. st. Warszawy, Czytelnia Starych Druków i Rękopisów [Manu- script Department of the Public Library of the City of Warsaw], Zbiór: Zarząd cywilny ziem wschodnich [Collection: Civil Board of Eastern Lands], 1592, k. 117. 38 ŽADEIKIS, pp. 431, 434. 39 GAIGALAITĖ, p. 26.

69 ing the dominance of the Poles and Polish culture in that city.40 The Polish political elite based their claims on the former territory of the Commonwealth of the Two Nations in which other national movements (Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belarusian) were active, on the tradition of the historical statehood, tried to prove the predominance of the Pol- ish-speaking residents and Polish culture in that space. Finally the Polish politicians insinuated the idea that only Poland, as a sanitary cordon, could protect Europe from the threat of Bolshevism that was coming from the East. The Polish political elite were unanimous in seeking to turn Lithuania into a part of the new Poland; the politicians’ opinions diverged only as to the strategy of implementation. Two concepts – incorporation and federal – dominated in Poland with respect to the borderland areas.41 The leader of the Polish National-Democratic Party, Roman Dmowski, was the most prominent representative of the concept of incorporation. He formulated the Polish territorial claims as follows: Poland did not seek to restore its state with the borders of the Commonwealth of Two Nations, however it had the right to overstep the ethnographic boundaries of Poland to acquire the kind of territory of a state, which would be in compliance with the historical mission of Poland. At the same time, however, it was underlined that Poland could occupy only such a territory of the former Commonwealth of the Two Nations where the Poles would remain a dominating nation in the whole of the state, and where the latter could easily ignore and assimilate the other nationalities (Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, etc.). If the camp of the supporters of the incorporation idea was sufﬁ ciently homogeneous, the camp of the followers of the federal concept was very motley and the latter was united by a main principle, which was that a modern federal Republic of Poland uniting nation states had to appear in the place of the Commonwealth of Two Nations, therefore its boundaries could even overstep the borders of 1772. The most inﬂ uential representative of the federal camp was the Chief of the Polish State Józef Piłsudski . In his vision of federal statehood, Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania with its historical borders and Lithuania itself was bound with federal links with Poland. A dominant role was planned for Po- land in this federation, both in a political and cultural sense.42 Piłsudski and his followers thought that the vision would be attractive to Lithuanians too, because in this way the question of Vilnius would be solved – it would become the capital of Lithuania.43 Both the Poles and the Lithuanians were going to take away Vilnius from the Bol- sheviks by force. In the second half of February, 1919, as soon as the Lithuanians managed to make the Bolsheviks switch to defence, and the news about the turmoil in Vilnius ruled by the Bolsheviks reached them, the Lithuanians began to devise plans to get back the capital by force. At the end of February on the order of the government Škirpa, the former Military Commandant of the city of Vilnius, even developed a plan of controlling the city after the latter found itself in the hands of the Lithuanians. He proposed to establish the prestige of the government in the recovered capital of Lithua-

40 EBERHARDT, pp. 81-123. 41 For more about it see: LEWANDOWSKI; WAPIŃSKI, Roman Dmowski; IDEM, Historia; STOCZEW- SKA; BORUTA; NOWAK, Historie; MARSZAŁEK. 42 LEWANDOWSKI; CZUBIŃSKI; NOWAK, Polska. 43 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji, p. 376.

70 nia by introducing strict military control of the situation, and by efﬁ ciently solving such vitally important problems as providing the city dwellers with food products in a city exhausted by the Bolshevik dictatorship on the other hand.44 The recovery of Vilnius and the entrenchment of the Lithuanian government in the capital were seen in essence as a military operation, which was possible to carry out with German military assistance. However, the Germans assumed a neutral position, and during the Lithuanian attack initiated at the end of April they failed to take Vilnius.45 Lithuania’s efforts to receive recognition of Lithuania’s sovereignty with its capital in Vilnius at the Peace Conference met with failure. The attempt to block the way to Poland’s claims to Vilnius against the background of the struggle against the Bolshe- viks by means of diplomatic notes was not a success either – Lithuania even declared a resolution to unite arms together with Poland in the ﬁ ght against Bolshevism if the question of recognition of Lithuania’s sovereignty with Vilnius would garner a positive result.46 Lithuania’s attempt to win recognition of Lithuania’s statehood with its capital in Vilnius directly from Poland in the spring of 1919 also ended in failure.

Under the control of Poland

Meanwhile, the march of the Polish Army to Vilnius was a success – after a three-day battle, on 22 April, Piłsudski’s proclamation “To the residents of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania” was issued in the city. This appeal created the illusion that Poland did not seek a reckless incorporation of Vilnius, and that the right of self-determination of the local population would be respected. The proclamation, resembling a promise to give Vilnius to Lithuania (though under certain conditions), caused a wave of indignation in Poland both in the parliament and in society; the dominating supporters of the incorporation idea protested.47 Vilnius’s Poles also protested, and they demanded that the annexation of the Vilnius Region should not be delayed.48 The ofﬁ cial newspaper of the Lithuanian government responded to the news that Vilnius was in the hands of the Poles by mobilizing statements about the liberation of Vilnius, that the Lithuanian State was created with its capital in Vilnius and “no Lith- uanian could imagine his Motherland without Vilnius”.49 Meanwhile the Lithuanian community which had remained in the city and which sought to underline its inﬂ uence in the city in every possible way, became the herald of the idea of that city as the capital of Lithuania. Papal Nuncio to Poland Pius XI, born Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti, after his visit to Vilnius at the beginning of 1920 when he received several dozen rep-

44 KAZYS ŠKIRPA: Vilniaus užvaldymo planas [The Plan of Taking Possession of Vilnius], 28.02.1919, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 149, l. 215-217. 45 LESČIUS, pp. 79-90. 46 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, pp. 108-109. 47 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, p. 79. 48 GIEROWSKĄ-KAŁŁAUR, pp. 179-180. 49 Kaunas, balandžio 26 d. [Kaunas, 26 April], in: Lietuva from 27.04.1919; Kaunas, balandžio 29 d. [Kaunas, 29 April], in: Lietuva from 30.04.1919.

71 resentatives of different Lithuanian societies, schools and most varied of Lithuanian institutions, in his report to the Vatican, having in mind a small number of Lithuanians in the city, noted the following: “One forms the impression that the smaller the number of the Lithuanians in Vilnius, the louder it is they raise their voice”.50 The Provisional Committee of Vilnius’ Lithuanians was elected at a meeting held on 22 April, which the Polish authorities recognised as an offi cial agency of the Lithua- nians of the Vilnius Region. The Lithuanian community decided to take the position of passive resistance with respect to the Polish administration; to rally all forces favourable to Lithuanians (fi rst and foremost those of the Belarusian and Jewish communities) around it and to strengthen the cultural positions of the Lithuanian community as much as possible.51 On 25 April 1919, the Lithuanian daily Nepriklausoma Lietuva [Independent Lith- uania] started its publication in Vilnius. The title itself symbolised expressively the Lithuanians’ categorical attitude towards the Poles, who they considered to be new occupiers of the capital.52 Soon the leader of the Vilnius Lithuanians Biržiška stated on its pages that the major strategic political goal of the Vilnius Lithuanians was a democratic independent Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius, therefore the tactical position of the Vilnius Lithuanians was to be as follows: to stay in Vilnius and strengthen the position of Lithuanians in the city.53 This was in line with the offi cial position, which was later formulated in the offi cial newspaper of the Lithuanian authorities as follows: “With Vilnius in danger, the number of Lithuanians in Vilnius must be on the increase rather than on the decrease”.54 Vilnius Lithuanians were urged to stay in the city, which was under the Poles, and strengthen Lithuanian positions, thus fi ghting against the Poles’ efforts to weaken the political and social activity of Lithuanians in Vilnius and at the same time to turn the capital of Lithuania into a Polish city.55 Orienting themselves fi rst, as it was thought, towards the so-called denationalised Polish-speaking Vilnius Lithuanians and then towards Polish society, the Lithuanian activists started printing press in Polish – on 15 May 1919, the daily Głos Litwy (The Voice of Lithuania) edited by Biržiškas appeared, while in the middle of the summer of 1919 the weekly Nasza Ziemia (Our Land) was issued. The editors of Głos Litwy underlined that its mission was to tie the broken “threads, which tied the capital Vilnius with the whole of Lithuania”.56 It was accentuated from the very fi rst issue that the Poles were invaders who had occupied “a part of Lithuania” and “Vilnius, its capital”.57 Mykolas Biržiška, who became the main author of the ed-

50 Stolica Apostolska, p. 203. 51 BIELIAUSKAS, p. 158. 52 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji, p. 441. 53 M. B-KA. [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Rimta valanda [A Serious Hour], in: Nepriklausomoji Lietu- va from 07.05.1919. 54 Kaunas, liepos 29 d. [Kaunas, 29 July], in: Lietuva from 30.07.1919. 55 Kaunas, rugpjūčio 2 d. [Kaunas, 2 August], in: Lietuva from 03.08.1919. 56 *** Redakcja, in: Głos Litwy from 15.05.1919. 57 M. B-KA [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Wilno, 15 maja. 1919 r. [Vilnius, 15 May 1919], in: Głos Litwy from 15.05.1919.

72 itorials, tried to prove the rights of the Lithuanians to Vilnius. Participating in polemic volleys with the Polish press, he accentuated in the editorials of the daily that the national aspirations of the Lithuanians were “independent Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius”,58 and the Lithuanian-Polish conﬂ ict could be regulated only having taken into consideration the fundamental condition of the Lithuanians – recognition of Lithuania’s independence with its capital in Vilnius.59 The press published in Vilnius that presented Lithuania’s position spoke categorically against the propositions to turn Vilnius into the capital of historical Lithuania, whose territory would encompass the historical boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Lith- uania.60 When campaigning for the future of Vilnius as “the capital of ethnographic Lithuania”, attempts were made to convince readers that Lithuanians understood very well the speciﬁ city of the city’s multi-nationality and the problems arising from that. It was promised by the Lithuanian publicists that after Lithuanians had become masters of Vilnius, the rights of all the nations in the city would be respected, and Poland would even win if it recognised an independent Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius.61 Meanwhile Poland tried to turn Vilnius into a kind of link between Lithuania and Poland, to be more exact, an object of exchange, pressing the Lithuanians and Bela- rusians to accept the state projects permeated with a federal spirit. The Civil Board of Eastern Lands, which was founded to manage the territory occupied by the Polish army, became an administrative instrument that was to help implement federal visions of Piłsudski .62 On 31 July 1919, the Chief of the Political Division of the Eastern De- partment of Poland, Marian Świechowski, in a memorandum about the Polish policy in Lithuanian and Belarusian lands, noted that the different aspirations of all national communities (Lithuanian, Polish and Belarusian) were united by the fact “that they are directed towards a main goal: to occupy and attach Vilnius as their own centre to themselves. It was Vilnius that, having become the bone of contention, can and must turn into the factor uniting these different tendencies by way of compromise”. He made the supposition that the Lithuanians seeking to get back Vilnius eventually would agree to accept Piłsudski’s vision of a federal state, which was at odds with the idea of a nation state with the capital in Vilnius cherished by the Lithuanians.63 The Lithuanian-Polish negotiations that continued from the spring of 1919, however, bore no fruit: Lithuania categorically demanded sovereignty for itself with its capital in Vilnius, and Poland kept refusing to recognise this.64 On 4 August 1919 after their arrival in Kaunas, the special Polish mission headed by Leon Wasilewski, proposed to hold elections to the Parliament both in Lithuania and in those parts of Lithuania that

58 IDEM: Wilno, 27 czerwca 1919 r. [Vilnius, 27 June 1919], in: Głos Litwy from 27.06.1919. 59 IDEM: Wilno, 28 czerwca 1919 r.[Vilnius, 28 June 1919], in: Głos Litwy from 28.06.1919. 60 W.: O Wilno [On Vilnius], in: Nasz Kraj from 26.08.1919; Wilno, 30 sierpnia 1919 r. [Vilnius, 30 August 1919], in: Głos Litwy from 30.08.1919. 61 Wilno, 7 lutego 1920 r. [Vilnius, 7 February 1920], in: Echo Litwy from 07.02.1920. 62 For more about it see: GIEROWSKA-KAŁŁAUR. 63 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, pp. 252-253. 64 Ibidem, pp. 259, 262; Šių dienų dokumentai [Today’s Documents], in: Lietuva from 10.08.1919.

73 were occupied by the Poles, which would convene in Vilnius and decide on Lithuania’s state system and its relations with Poland. The Government of Lithuania refused point blank: it was not acceptable to the Lithuanian government to raise any question of the political dependence of the part of Lithuania with its capital Vilnius, which was occupied by Poland.65 There were demands whereby it was said that “that the Poles should move away from Lithuania and give us back our capital of Vilnius” which were issued at meetings held both in the provisional capital and the province, which supported a Lithuanian government that defended the country’s sovereignty with Vilnius as its capital.66 Having failed to impose its projects of federal statehood upon Lithuania using diplomatic pressure, Poland even tried to solve the problem by organising a coup d’etat in Lithuania – to replace the overthrown authorities with the puppet pro-Polish Gov- ernment of Lithuania. However this coup d’etat, planned to be carried out at the end of August 1919, was disclosed.67 The disclosed plan of the coup d’etat only strengthened the conviction of the Lithuanian political elite that Poland needed Vilnius only to use it as bait to make Lithuania join Poland.68 When Poland failed to make Lithuania join a federation with Poland by force, Pił- sudski decided to overcome Lithuania by siege – to organise a political, military and economic blockade of the country to the extent Poland was able to. These tactics were based on the conviction that Lithuania would be unable to preserve the independence of its country on its own.69 This siege was accompanied by a propaganda campaign, and one of the most interesting and distinctive episodes of this campaign was an attempt to make use of writer Juozapas Albinas Herbačiauskas (Józef Albin Herbaczewski) who taught Lithuanian at the University of Kraków and who spoke publicly, citing his own words “for the renewal of the union between Lithuania and Poland”. He announced that hoping that Lithuanians would renounce their capital Vilnius was the same as thinking they were villains. At the same time he campaigned for Lithuania’s joining Poland through federal ties.70 It is not surprising that in the autumn of 1919, the Polish activists who launched

65 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, pp. 259, 262; Šių dienų dokumentai [Today’s Documents], in: Lietuva from 10.08.1919; Kaunas, rugpjūčio 13 d. [Kaunas 13 August], in: Lietuva from 14.08.1919. 66 Protesto demonstracija Kaune 1919 rugpjūčio 17 d. [Protest Demonstration in Kaunas on 17 August 1919], in: Lietuva from 19.08.1919; Lietuvos piliečiai ir pilietės! Ministerio pirmininko kalba pasakyta per manifestaciją Kaune, rugpjūčio 17 d. š. m. [Lithuanian Citizens! Speech of the Prime Minister Delivered at the Manifestation in Kaunas on 17 August], in: Lietuva from 27.08.1919; Iš laikraščių [From newspapers]; Lietuvos piliečių balsai [Voic- es of Lithuanian Citizens], in: Lietuva from 04.09.1919; Lietuvos piliečių balsai. Mitingas Šakiuose, rugpjūčio 24 [Voices of Lithuanian Citizens. A Meeting in Šakiai, 24 August], in: Lietuva from 14.09.1919. 67 For more about it see: PAPEČKYS, P.O.W.; PRANAS JANAUSKAS. 68 Vilniaus “problema”. Kaunas, rugsėjo 1 d. [“The Problem” of Vilnius. Kaunas 1 September], in: Lietuva from 02.09.1919. 69 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, p. 149. 70 HERBACZEWSKI, O Wilno, pp. 7-10.

74 the propaganda campaign with respect to Lithuania in Vilnius made Herbačiauskas their helper. Financially supported by Poland, Herbačiauskas argued that “there could be no purely national Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius” and the only way for the Lithuanians to recover the capital was in a federation with Poland. When Herbačiau- skas tried to publicise these ideas in Kaunas in the autumn of 1919, he was whistled off immediately by the audience.71 The Polish community residing in the territory under dispute was not enamoured with Piłsudski’s federal vision either. And what is more, the committees campaigning for unifi cation with Poland started to be established in the districts, and at the beginning of 1920 even the organisation Borderlands Guard (Straż Kresowa) that was popularising Piłsudski’s federal policy started campaigning for the immediate annexation of that territory to Poland.72 The landslide against the West Russian Volunteer Army of Bermondt-Avalov in November 1919 fi lled the Lithuanians with self-confi dence and gave birth to the hope to get the capital back by force. Urgings to give rebuff to the Poles who “stuck a knife into the very heart of Lithuania – Vilnius; [and] seized our capital”73 were heard in the meetings held in the province rural areas. Beginning with the end of 1919 the urging to get the capital back resounded ever louder, and this became perhaps the most popular slogan.74 The warlike resolution of the public can hardly be identifi ed with the real plans of the Lithuanian government of that time. The latter did not plan to take the capital back by force – this was rather the beginning of a time when the liberation of Vilnius started turning into a mobilising idea for the national community. Not having Vilnius in its possession, the Lithuanian political elite kept postponing the convocation of the Constituent Seimas. The Lithuanian activists dreamed that the Constituent Sei- mas would start their work in the historical capital. Furthermore, the Lithuanian elite feared that the convocation of the Constituent Seimas in Kaunas could be interpreted as a refusal of Vilnius.75

The Recovery of the Capital

Not taking into account the insigniﬁ cant armed clashes in the demarcation line zone, and mutual diplomatic probing, Lithuanian-Polish relations until the summer of 1920 resembled a conﬂ ict that was postponed because more important issues appeared. Po- land fought against Soviet Russia, successfully expanding its territory to the east. Lith- uania strengthened its statehood inside the country and dreamed about recovering the

71 Ibidem; IDEM, Kur; IDEM, Litwa; NARUŠIENĖ, pp. 184-201. 72 GIEROWSKA-KAŁŁAUR, pp. 90-92. 73 Lietuvos piliečių balsai [Voices of Lithuanian Citizens], in: Lietuva from 11.11.1919. 74 M. B-ONO: Gruodžio 8 d. demonstracija Kaune [The 8 December Demonstration in Kaunas], in: Tauta from 12.12.1919; RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1919 m. birželio 21-oji – 1920 m. kovo 15-oji, p. 241. 75 PETRAS VAIČIŪNAS: Iš šiaurės į vakarus [From the North to the West], in: Lietuva from 17.03.1920.

75 capital – the programme aspiration to get back the capital was unanimously underlined at the Constituent Seimas, which started work in Kaunas on 15 May 1920 and in the Declaration of Grinius’s new Cabinet of Ministers presented on 23 June. The Christian Democratic bloc, expressing approval of the government’s declaration even announced the following: if the Poles did not return Vilnius “a holy war will break out and Vilnius will be ours”.76 In June the situation in the Polish-Soviet front changed radically – the military initiative passed into the hands of the Red Army and the latter threatened with the occupying of Vilnius. Poland feared that Lithuania that sought to get back Vilnius could become the Bolsheviks’ ally, therefore it was in a hurry to normalise the relations. On 4 July, the Foreign Minister of Poland Eustachy Sapieha sent a telegram to the Foreign Minister of Lithuania informing Lithuania of Poland’s decision to recognise Lithuania de facto and its readiness to “establish friendly relations with Lithuania”.77 Lithuania’s response was reserved because Poland’s recognition did not contain a single word about the most important thing for Lithuanians, which was that Vilnius belonged to Lithuania. The danger that soon Vilnius would fi nd itself in the hands of the attacking Bolsheviks increased with every day. Poland, who was asking for help at the Spa Conference of the Supreme Council of the fi ve Entente powers held in Belgium between 5-16 July 1920, when pressed by the large powers, had to admit that it would not defend Vilnius and agreed to give it over to Lithuania. Poland entrusted the Entente with the solution of the Vilnius question, and considered Vilnius passing into the hands of the Lithuanians to be only a “temporary occupation”.78 The Entente representatives wanted the Lithuanians to march into Vilnius before the Bolsheviks did, but Poland was not in a hurry to give Vilnius over to Lithuania and sought fi rst to get guarantees from the Lithuanians that after occupying Vilnius the Lithuanians would not consider the issue of the city’s belonging to be resolved and would entrust the League of Nations with the solution of the question of Vilnius. How- ever, the Cabinet of Ministers of Lithuania that sat in the conference on 12 July 1920 decisively rejected the proposal to entrust the League of Nations with dealing with the question of Vilnius, and took the decision that the Army should cross the demarcation line between the Lithuanians and the Poles.79 The Lithuanians were encouraged by the Soviet-Lithuanian Peace Treaty signed in Moscow on the same day, which meant recognition of sovereignty of the territory of Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius.80 During these negotiations, the Lithuanian delegation based the rights to Vilnius on historical arguments and argued that the Lithuanians, whose self-determination in favour of Lithuania’s sovereignty raised no doubts, constituted the majority of the residents of the city. The fact that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania was accentuated particu-

76 I sesijos 1posėdis, 1920 05 15, I sesijos 18 posėdis, 1920 06 23 [The First Sitting of the First Session, 15 May 1920, the 18th Sitting of the First Session, 23 June 1920], in: Steigiamojo, 4 sąs. 77 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, p. 371. 78 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 210-211. 79 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, pp. 389-391. 80 For more about it see: LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos.

76 larly strongly.81 The Bolsheviks rejected the Lithuanians’ arguments that Vilnius was Lithuanian from a national point of view, but they recognised the arguments about the signifi cance of Vilnius as a political, economic and cultural centre to Lithuania. They agreed with the Lithuanians and even underlined that Vilnius really was a cultural, political and economic centre of the whole of Lithuania and its signifi cance was even growing. The Bolsheviks agreed that the argument about the capital was persuasive and could be used when predicating Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius on the basis of the principle of self-determination.82 Perceiving the profound signifi cance of Vilnius to the Lithuanians, the Bolsheviks even manipulated it: by repeating the arguments put forward by the Lithuanians about the importance of Vilnius, they tried to draw the Lithuanians in a war against the Poles; when the Red Army carried out an attack, they encouraged the Lithuanians to take Vilnius back by force. The Lithuanians resisted this temptation.83 The Soviet-Lithuanian Peace Treaty was perceived by Lithuanians as an important recognition of their rights to Vilnius. On 12 July, late in the evening, the Commander-in-Chief of the Lithuanian Armed Forces Stasys Nastopka issued the order to the Army “to return their old capital Vilni- us”.84 Expecting that the Poles would withdraw, the Lithuanians hoped to take Vilnius before the Bolsheviks did; however, the Poles stopped the Lithuanians’ march by force. When on the afternoon of 15 July the Lithuanian Armed Forced marched into Vilnius, the city was already in the hands of the Bolsheviks. Trying to avoid incidents with the Bolsheviks, the Lithuanian Armed Forces, having established the Commandant’s Of- fi ce in Vilnius, withdrew from Vilnius.85 The news about the recovered capital caused a wave of euphoria in Kaunas, though actually Vilnius was in the hands of the Bolshe- viks.86 Appealing to the Peace Treaty, the Lithuanians urged the Bolsheviks to withdraw from the capital of Lithuania as soon as possible; however, the latter did not withdraw and established Soviet government bodies in the city, which worried Lithuanians.87 The Lithuanians did not lose optimism and were getting ready to take over Vilnius. The Nationalist press urged the Lithuanian workers, offi cials and business people to go to the recovered city and underlined that the most important thing was that the capital

81 Minutes of the third sitting of 09.05.1920 of the Peace Negotiations between Lithuania and Russia, in: LYA, f. 77, ap. 3, b. 73, l. 71. 82 Protocol of the Commission on Borders at the peace negotiations between Lithuania and Soviet Russia on 13.-17.05.1920, in: LYA, f. 77, ap. 3, b. 79, l. 10-11. 83 LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos, pp. 133-142. 84 GIMŽAUSKAS/SVARAUSKAS, p. 392. 85 LESČIUS, pp. 288-292. 86 Manifestacija dėl Vilniaus atvadavimo Kaune, liepos 16 dieną [Manifestation of the Liber- ation of Vilnius in Kaunas, 16 July], in: Lietuva from 18.07.1920; Ministerio Pirmininko D-ro K. Griniaus kalba, pasakyta 1920-VII-16 manifestantų miniai, atėjusiai Vyriausybės sveikintų [Speech Delivered by Dr. Kazys Grinius on 16 July 1920 to a Group of Demon- strators Who Came to Welcome the Government], in: Lietuva from 20.07.1920. 87 Iš Vilniaus [From Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 21.07.1920; Dėl padėties Vilniuj. Kaunas, liepos mėn. 21 d. [On the Situation in Vilnius. Kaunas, 21 July], in: Lietuva from 22.07.1920.

77 should be conquered by the Lithuanian intelligentsia, including the Lithuanian clergy.88 The Lithuanian press was full of enthusiastic plans to create “centres of science, art and literature” in Vilnius as befi tted a capital.89 Some of the members of the Lithuanian political elite had optimistic hopes that after experience with the Bolsheviks, the residents of Vilnius would welcome the Lithuani- ans “as saviours”.90 However, the Lithuanian government understood that the recovery of Vilnius was only a part of the problem solved; Vilnius still had to be integrated into the “body” of Lithuania, which would not be an easy task to do noting that “Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania. There were many Jews and Poles and Belarusians in it too. There were also Russians and Germans and the Tartars in it”, therefore “particular tact” would be needed in turning the residents of different nationalities into loyal citizens of the Lithuanian nation state.91 The newspaper Lietuva [Lithuania] characterised the authorities’ programme in Vilnius with three words: “Order, bread, education” promising cultural autonomy to all the nations and underlining the following: “there can be no question about denationalising the minorities”.92 The fact that the appointed Represent- ative of the Government for the city of Vilnius Biržiška was commissioned to form the counselling body consisting of the representatives of other national groups testifi es to the fact that the opinion of other national groups was really going to be listened to.93 The triumphant march of the Red Army with the exporting of the Bolshevik revolution to Europe ended in the approaches of Warsaw. After losing the Battle of Warsaw, the Bolshevik Army began to withdraw on 17 August, and the following day the Polish Army went to an inexorable assault intending to recover all the territories they had lost. The Lithuanians decided not to wait any longer. They demanded that the Bolsheviks abandon Vilnius without delay. On 27 August, the last Bolsheviks withdrew from Vil- nius and the Lithuanian fl ag fl ew over Gediminas Castle Tower. It is not diffi cult to imagine the following: if the Bolsheviks’ plans to occupy Warsaw had succeeded, Vilnius would have become the capital of Soviet Lithuania. On the occasion of the recovery of Vilnius, the Declaration of the Government of Lithuania issued on 15 September 1920, underlined the following – there would be no discussions about Vilnius’ belonging to one or another country because Lithuania simply had recovered their capital. The Government assured that it knew the national specifi cs of that land very well and promised to respect the rights of all nationalities, and

88 Vyrai, kas tik gali, į Vilnių! [Men, Whoever Can, go to Vilnius!], in: Tauta from 20.07.1920; Aiškūnas, Aspirantams kunigams [To Post-graduate Priests], in: Tauta from 24.08.1920. 89 Vilnius mūsų! [Vilnius is Ours!] in: Tauta from 20.07.1920. 90 AUGUSTINAS VOLDEMARAS: Užimtosios Lietuvos atliuosavimas [Liberating Occupied Lithu- ania], in: Tauta from 10.08.1920. 91 Bežengiant į atvaduotas vietas. Kaunas, rugpjūčio 3 d. [When Marching to the Liberated Locations. Kaunas, 3 August], in: Lietuva from 04.08. 1920. 92 Vyriausybės planai atvaduotose srityse. Kaunas, rugpjūčio mėn. 13 d. [The Government’s Plans in the Liberated Regions. Kaunas, 13 August], in: Lietuva from 14.08.1920. 93 Minutes of the sitting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Lithuania of 12.07.1920, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 86, l. 212.

78 to behave in a liberal manner with respect to the issue of the language.94 Polish activists both in Vilnius and in Warsaw got the impression that in seeking to turn the Vilnius Region into an organic part of their state, the Lithuanian government was looking for a modus vivendi denominator that would guarantee the loyalty of the Polish community to the Lithuanian State, and was even ready to consider the issue of creating an autonomous Polish administrative unit in the recovered territory.95 Actually Lithuania ruled Vilnius for too short a time for its policy in the Vilnius Region to acquire clear contours; however, a year later the Lithuanians themselves admitted that then the Lithuanians’ aspiration to Lithuanianise the capital without delay took the upper hand, and the government did not want to hear anything about autonomy for the Vilnius Region.96 With the Polish – Soviet war raging, Lithuania sought to preserve its neutrality and to defend its borders, which Soviet Russia had recognised for Lithuania when concluding the Peace Treaty; however, Poland was not going to recognise these borders. With the Polish Army pushing the Bolsheviks and approaching Lithuania, the Lithuanians and the Poles sat down at the negotiation table at the end of August. The negotiations went on with breaks, and they were marked by clashes of the armies in the Suwałki region.97 At that time, the defence of the borders was personiﬁ ed into the defence of the capital in Lithuanian propaganda discourse, and the following symbolic images of Vilnius were used: a part of the volunteer cavalry were given names like Gediminas Castle98 or Iron Wolf.99 The last time the Lithuanians and the Poles sat down at the negotiation table was in Suwałki on 30 September. These negotiations ended at night on 8 October after the parties had signed an agreement on the establishment of the demarcation line according to which Vilnius remained on the side of the Lithuanians.100 During the negotiations the fate of Vilnius was not formally considered, though both Parties thought ﬁ rst and foremost about it. The Lithuanians hoped that the demarcation line would become an unalterable cordon for the Poles who were seeking to get Vilnius. However, by the middle of September, Piłsudski ultimately came to a decision concerning the tactics for recovering Vilnius – it had to be occupied by “rebellious” Polish soldiers from the Vilnius Region – in this way attempts were made to avoid the promise given to entrust the Entente with the solution of the Vilnius question. The world had to be put before the

94 41st sitting of the ﬁ rst session, 15.09.1920, in: Steigiamojo, 9 sąs. 95 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 222-223. 96 TAMOŠIŪNAS, p. 249; RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. lapkričio 8-oji – 1922 m. birželio 15-oji, pp. 77-78. 97 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 224-263; ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 100-105; WYSZ- CZELSKI, pp. 90-106. 98 Lietuvos Moterys! [Women of Lithuania!], in: Lietuva from 02.10.1920. 99 Vyrai, balnokit žirgus Lenkų mušti! [Men, Saddle your Horses to Fight the Poles!], in: Lietu- va from 09.10.1920. 100 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 275-291; ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 105-110; Suvalkų sutartis.

79 accomplished fact – the “rebellion” of the soldiers who were from the Vilnius Region and who as though defended their right of self-determination.101 The planned “rebellion” took place following several hours after the end of the negotiations, in the morning of 8 October, the “rebellious” Polish General Lucjan Że- ligowski declared that he did not agree with the Suwałki Agreement signed by the Polish government according to which Vilnius was given to the Lithuanians, and he announced that he was marching to Vilnius to defend the right of the self-determination of the local residents. Żeligowski’s attack came as a surprise to the Lithuanians. Lithu- ania protested, and Poland denied having anything to do with the “rebellious” General. The Lithuanian Army was not ready to defend Vilnius and withdrew from the city. In the afternoon of 9 October Lucjan Żeligowski’s solders marched into Vilnius.102

The Capital of Middle Lithuania

On 12 October 1920, General Żeligowski announced the establishment of Middle Lith- uania, and Vilnius became its capital. The territory with a population of nearly half a million, which was occupied by the “rebels”, imitated a sovereign state with its armed forces, a Provisional Management Commission, which served as a substitute for the Cabinet of Ministers, and General Żeligowski who played the role of a dictator.103 The very name of Middle Lithuania and the state symbolism (the quasi-state fl ag had the Polish White Eagle and the Lithuanian Vytis104) testifi ed to the fact that the project of the ostensible statehood was an attempt of the followers of the idea of Polish federalism to embody their own vision of federalism in the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The creators of Middle Lithuania cherished hopes to win Vilnius’s Lithuanians over to their side; however, the latter wrecked these hopes immediately. On the second day of Żeligowskis taking possession of Vilnius, the Provisional Committee of Vilnius Lith- uanians renewed its activities, and on 12 October (on the day Żeligowski announced the establishment of Middle Lithuania), the fi rst newspaper in Polish called Echo Litwy [Echo of Lithuania] and published by Lithuanians appeared and its editors declared that they would be “loyal to the idea of the Lithuanian State with its capital in Vilnius”. The Lithuanian activists in Vilnius under Polish rule, overcoming obstacles posed by censorship, issued the press in Lithuanian, Polish and Russian, in which it was argued that Lithuanians residing in the Vilnius Region and the Region itself legally belonged to Lithuania. The Lithuanian press responded to the propaganda about the Vilnius Region belonging to Poland105 by arguing that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania.106

101 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920, pp. 270-271. 102 LESČIUS, pp. 347-420; KLIMECKI, pp.71-78; WYSZCZELSKI, pp. 106-143. 103 KRAJEWSKI/KOLARZ/GAŁĘDEK, pp. 81-125. 104 Vytis [Chaser] – a knight on horseback – the coat of arms of Lithuania. 105 The Poles’ arguments substantiating their claims to Vilnius remained the same as earlier. For more about it see: WEEKS, The War, pp. 59-74. 106 BIRŽIŠKA, Dėl, pp. 183-184.

80 The news about Vilnius becoming the capital of Middle Lithuania was deemed political blackmail in Lithuania, trying to repeat the Bolshevik venture when it announced Vilnius the capital of Lit-Bel.107 Lithuania treated Middle Lithuania as the manifestation and outcome of Polish aggression.108 The architects of the statehood of Middle Lithuania hoped that, having lost Vilnius, Lithuanian society and above all its elite would be demoralised and would submissively accept the visions of Polish federalism imposed on Lithuania in order to get the capital back. However, the strategists were disillusioned – the loss of Vilnius caused a wave of mobilising patriotism in Lithu- anian society: Defence Committees were being established in the remotest towns of Lithuania, citizens donated generously to the defence of their country, and a crowd of volunteers, such as poet Kazys Binkis who having bought a horse, joined the volunteer cavalry Geležinis Vilkas [Iron Wolf] (the title itself was an expressive symbol of Vilni- us) and fl ooded the army.109 In the autumn of 1920, the Lithuanian political elite was for the fi rst time able to be convinced of the mobilising force the image of Vilnius had for the Lithuanian peasant society. On 15 October, Prime Minister Grinius noted that the bloodshed in defending Vilnius only strengthened Lithuanians’ links with their historical capital – “another tie was added – one of blood”.110 The bloodshed immediately became a symbolic argument of the Lithuanians in basing their rights to Vilnius. At the same time, the Suwałki Agreement and Żeligowski’s “revolt” became the symbol of the Poles’ cunningness in Lithuanian national mythology and fi nally strengthened the stereotype of the “cunning Pole” in the Lithuanian public consciousness.111 By 21 November 1920, Lithuanians had stopped Żeligowski’s aggression, which posed a danger of occupying Kaunas, the provisional capital of Lithuania. The armed confl ict ended by signing an armistice on 29 November through the mediation of the Military Commission of Control of the League of Nations. At the same time, the Lithu- anians defended their rights to Vilnius through diplomatic means. In the middle of Oc- tober, the Lithuanian political elite sincerely believed that Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius would be defended by the League of Nations, which was entrusted with dealing with the Lithuanian-Polish confl ict. Voldemaras, a representative of Lithuania at the League of Nations, voiced such expectations in the Parliament of Lithuania.112 The Council of the League of Nations considered the Lithuanian-Polish territorial confl ict on 26-28 October. On 28 October the Chairman of the Council of the League of Nations Paul Hymans offered the confl icting Parties to solve the issue of the disputable territory’s belonging by holding a plebiscite. This way of solving the confl ict did not appeal to the participants in the confl ict – neither Party was sure of its victory, however neither of the Parties had courage to reject the proposal of the League of Nations,

107 Juodoji magija. Kaunas, spalių mėn. 11 d. [Black Magic. Kaunas, 11 October], in: Lietuva from 12.10.1920. 108 For more about it see: LAURINAVIČIUS, Kodėl, pp. 253-260. 109 “Geležinio Vilko” kronika [The Chronicle of “Iron Wolf”], in: Lietuva from 19.10.1920. 110 51st sitting of the ﬁ rst session, 15.10.1920, in: Steigiamojo, 1 sąs. 111 ABROMAITIS, Kaip, p. 214; BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani, pp. 136-138. 112 The 5Ist sitting of the ﬁ rst session, 15.10.1920, in: Steigiamojo, 11 sąs.

81 fearing painful consequences in the international arena when dealing with their other issues. The Lithuanian elite and society113 perceived the proposal to solve the issue of the capital’s belonging by means of a plebiscite simply as an offence and responded to it with organising protest meetings in which the signifi cance of Vilnius as the capital city, as a Lithuanian political, cultural and economic centre to Lithuania, was accentuated. It was underlined that no Lithuanian government would agree to turn the capital into a territory for a plebiscite.114 This vox populi was very convenient for the Lithuanian diplomats and the latter, it seems, even incited such moods. The Lithuanian government was not ready to reject the idea of the plebiscite unconditionally, and therefore tried to negotiate some concessions. The Foreign Minister of Lithuania Klimas , who presented the state’s offi cial position to the public in the press on 5 November stated that the government did not reject the idea of the plebiscite if the freedom to vote were guaranteed in the territories under the rule of Poland, the Lithuanian State were recognised de jure, and the issue of Vilnius belonging were not questioned.115 Shortly after that it was added in the newspaper that no Lithuanian government would agree to the issue of belonging of the capital of Lithuania being considered by means of a plebiscite because that was the same as doubting the existence of the Lithuanian State itself.116 The following comparison was given in the press when proving the unacceptability of the idea of holding a plebiscite in Vilnius: “There can be no question about holding a plebiscite in Vilnius as there can be no question about a plebiscite in Warsaw”117 thus underlining that plebiscites on belonging of the capitals of the states were never held. In December 1920, the Lithuanian political elite were already prepared to negotiate with the Polish activists in Vilnius, and even grant autonomy to the Vilnius Region in Lithuania. However, with the Lithuanian activists discretely exploring the ground in Vilnius concerning the possible negotiations, soon it became clear that the positions were incompatible: the majority of the Poles were in favour of incorporating the Vilni- us Region into Poland, and the Lithuanians treated Vilnius as the capital of the nation state.118 These unoffi cial and unsuccessful mutual attempts to establish relations and negotiate lasted nearly until the summer of 1921. The essential cause of the unsuccessful negotiations on the side of the Lithuanians was their refusal to recognise Vilnius as a subject matter of the dispute.119

113 For more on the opinion of society about the issues of the relations with Poland see: ABRO- MAITIS, Kaip, pp. 213-225. 114 Rezoliucija, priimta Kauno gyventojų mitinge [Resolution Adopted at the Meeting of the Residents of Kaunas], in: Lietuva from 03.11.1920. 115 Dienos klausimu [On the Issue of the Day], in: Lietuva from 05.11.1920. 116 Vilnius – sostinė mūs buvo ir bus [Vilnius Was and Will Be Our Capital], in: Lietuva from 07.11.1920. 117 Karo paliaubas padarius [Having Made a War Truce], in: Trimitas 19 (1920), p. 4. 118 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1920 m. kovo 16-oji – 1921 m. sausio 12-oji, pp. 474-495, 520. 119 LAURINAVIČIUS, Kodėl, p. 256.

82 On 13 February 1921, the Government of Lithuania submitted a diplomatic note to the League of Nations Plebiscite Commission in which it did not reject the plebiscite but refused to solve the issue of whom Vilnius belonged to with its help, stating that the city was the capital of Lithuania and therefore it had to be annexed to Lithuania without any plebiscite.120 As though wishing to strengthen the position presented in the note, it turned the commemoration of the Day of Independence on 16 February in Lithuania into a campaign of manifesting the rights of the Lithuanians to Vilnius.121 After Lith- uania’s note, holding the plebiscite became senseless therefore on 3 March 1921 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution, thereby refusing to solve the conﬂ ict by way of a plebiscite and offered direct negotiations to the Parties.122 It should be noted that the question of Vilnius’ for the Lithuanian political elite was a question of the existence of the state itself: it was feared that having lost Vilnius, Lithuania would not survive as an independent state. The political elite saw belonging of Vilnius and the Klaipėda territory to Lithuania as a guarantee of the stability of Lithuania’s statehood.123

Paul Hymans’s Federation Models

In April 1921, direct negotiations began between Lithuania and Poland, headed by the Chairman of the Council of the League of Nations Hymans . This period of the negotiations that lasted until the end of the year was given the name of Hymansiada in Lith- uania.124 On 20 May, Paul Hymans presented his fi rst draft agreement, which specifi ed that the confl icting Parties reconcile by creating a two-state federation. And following the example of Switzerland, one of the Parties of the federation – Lithuania – was proposed to be formed of two cantons: Kaunas and Vilnius. The territory under Żeligowski was to be turned into Vilnius canton. Both cantons of Lithuania were planned to have broad autonomy – they were even projected to have separate Parliaments. Having accepted this project, Lithuania would have recovered Vilnius, however, it would have found itself under complete political and cultural infl uence of Poland, which was unacceptable to the Lithuanian political elite. Lithuania was not in a hurry to reject this proposal, and took advantage of the international platform for the internationalisation of the Vilnius question and declaring its rights to Vilnius. Eventually the Lithuanian

120 Mūsų Vyriausybės nota T.S. dėl plebiscito [The Note of Our Government to the League of Nations Concerning the Plebiscite], in: Lietuva from 19.02.1921. 121 Vasario 16 d. [16 February], in: Lietuva from 04.02.1921; 16 vasario [16 February], in: Lietuva from 10.02.1921; Minčių žiupsnys dėl vasario 16 d. šventės [A Handful of Ideas about the Festival of 16 February], in: Lietuva from 15.02.1921; Nerimasčio gandas [The Rumour of Anxiety], in: Lietuva from 15.02.1921; Vasario 16 d. šventė Kaune [The 16th February Festival in Kaunas], in: Lietuva from 18.02.1921; DAMAZAS TREIGYS: Vasario 16 dienos šventė Kaune [The 16th February Festival in Kaunas], in: Laisvė from 20.02.1921. 122 VILKELIS, p. 89. 123 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1920 m. kovo 16-oji – 1921 m. sausio 12-oji, p. 473. 124 For more about it see: MIŠKINIS; ŽEPKAITĖ, Lietuva; IDEM, Diplomatija; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939; VILKELIS; ZENONAS BUTKUS, Federalizmo, pp. 213-223; VEILENTIENĖ, pp. 30-38.

83 diplomats stated that they agreed to negotiate with Poland, but refused to establish federal relations with it. The negotiations broke down. In the summer of 1921, Lithuanian society optimistically hoped that the Vilnius question would be resolved in favour of Lithuania and, according to the contemporaries, was not sure only of one thing – the date of the capital’s recovery.125 This optimism became an incentive for the Lithuanian political elite to start devising a programme of managing Vilnius and the Vilnius Region in July 1921, which would be used after Lithuania regained the Vilnius Region. The preparation of the project was undertaken by the Commission on Eastern Lithuania.126 It resembled a lesson that was learned somewhat late – after the Lithuanians marched into Vilnius in September 1920, without any clear action program they simply began the all-out Lithuanianisation of Vilnius. Römeris , one of the members of the Commission on Eastern Lithuania, then stated that two trends of policy existed with regard to the Vilnius Region. The supporters of the fi rst current proposed to win the residents of different nationalities over to Lithuania’s side by taking their national expectations into consideration, which is why they were even ready to give autonomy to the Vilnius Region. Meanwhile the supporters of the second political current maintained the attitude that Lithuania was a Lithuanian nation state; the representatives of this current respected the rights of the national minorities in the country; however, they considered the titular nation (Lithuanians) to be the true masters of the country. Being the follower of the fi rst current Römeris stated that in essence the entire Lithuanian political elite (irrespective of differences in their political views) belonged to the supporters of the second trend and forecasted the following: if the draft for a Vilnius policy were prepared, it would be based “exclusively on nationalistic bases”.127 The draft was not prepared, so the following insight can only be added: if this draft had been prepared, Vilnius would have been treated as the capital of a nation state creating preconditions for the dominance of Lithuanians both in a political and cultural sense. The negotiations were renewed in September after Paul Hymans had proposed a second model for the agreement. The idea to divide Lithuania into two cantons was refused. Instead of this, wide autonomy was provided to the Vilnius Region (even with the Parliament that had a legislative power), and Lithuania and Poland was to be linked in essence with the same federal ties as in the fi rst project. The Government of Lith- uania was inclined to adopt the project in an attempt to restrict the rights of Vilnius autonomy that was being offered; however, the Lithuanian diplomats were faced with a dilemma: it was feared that the adoption of Hymans’s project would turn into a funeral for Lithuania’s sovereignty and its rejection would become a permanent loss of the capital of Vilnius. This was the dilemma that the Lithuanian diplomats who arrived in Kaunas at the end of October tackled for a whole week. The adoption or rejection

125 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. sausio 13-oji – lapkričio 7-oji, pp. 271-272. 126 The Commission on Eastern Lithuania was an advisory expert group formed within the Gov- ernment in January 1921 from the representatives-experts of national minorities who were to help formulate policy on the issues of the Vilnius Region for the government. The Commis- sion oriented itself mainly towards the issues of domestic policy. 127 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. sausio 13-oji – lapkričio 7-oji, pp. 272-273.

84 of Hymans’s project seemed to be equal evils, hence a middle way was unanimously chosen – the project was adopted with reservation.128 This ostensible middle way was only a self-deception created by the diplomats themselves, who were trying to avoid a solution. Meanwhile discontent with Hymans’s projects had been growing in Lithuanian society since the spring. During the above-mentioned meeting of Lithuanian diplomats, after consultations with public and political leaders, there was a warning that was proffered that there might be public unrest, which “could turn into a catastrophe for our country” upon adopting Hymans’s project.129 The representatives of the opposition Pažanga Party [Progress Party] criticised Hymans’s models most fi ercely130, arguing that thanks to autonomy, Vilnius would turn into an independent state and the recovery of the capital would be merely an illusion, because Lithuania would not become the real master of its capital. However, if nonetheless it was decided to give autonomy to the Vilnius Region this could not apply to Vilnius, which was the capital of the country.131 Furthermore, the leaders of Pažanga Party were fi rmly convinced that the geographical, economic and social ties that connected Vilnius to Lithuania were so strong that Vilnius would unavoidably be a part of Lithuania, which is why Lithuania did not have to put in too much effort anyway – it was high time to work for the sake of Lithuania, though it could take as many as 10 or even 20 years to get Vilnius back.132 The reports about repressions carried out by the Polish administration against the Lithuanian community in the Vilnius Region aroused passion in Lithuanian society. The fi rst pages of the dailies carried reports about the persecution of Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region.133 These repressions were judged in Lithuania as the single-minded aspiration of the Polish authorities to “bury” the Lithuanian community in Vilnius, thus fi ghting with live witnesses to the idea of the Lithuanian capital in Vilnius itself.134 These sharpened facts of “Polish oppression” in the propaganda of anti-Polish discourse in Lithuania formed the image of an oppressed Lithuanian capital that was fi ght-

128 TAMOŠIŪNAS, pp. 241-261. 129 Ibidem, p. 253. 130 For more about the position of the representatives of Pažanga [Progress] Party see: KAS- PARAVIČIUS, Alternatyvos, pp. 227-236. 131 A. SM. [ANTANAS SMETONA]: Neatsargus pažadas [A Careless Promise], in: Lietuvos balsas from 28.04.1921; IDEM: Ar galima ir reikalinga Vilniui autonomija [Is Autonomy Possible and Necessary to Vilnius], in: Lietuvos balsas from 03.05.1921; IDEM: Susibendravus su Lenkija [After Talks with Poland], in: Lietuvos balsas from 17-18.09.1921; D. D.: Palauk- sim! [We Shall Wait!] in: Laisvė from 01.11.1921; Trečioji galimybė [The Third Possibility], in: Trimitas 44 (1921), p. 1. 132 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. sausio 13-oji – lapkričio 7-oji, pp. 26-27, 39-40. 133 E.g.: M.N.: Kaip lenkai naikina liet. įstaigas Vilniuje [How the Poles are Destroying Lithu- anian Institutions in Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 03.09.1921; Ginkluotas lietuvių įstaigų pu- olimas Vilniuje [Armed Attack Upon Lithuanian Institutions in Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 10.11.1921; Dėl ginkluoto lietuvių įstaigų puolimo Vilniuj [Concerning Armed Attacks upon Lithuanian Institutions in Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 12.10.1921; Vandalų darbo aukoms [To the Victims of Vandals], in: Lietuva from 12.10.1921. 134 Vilniaus baisenybės [Vilnius’ Horrors], in: Lietuva from 24.08.1921.

85 ing on. And Vilnius’s Lithuanians were represented in this image as direct defenders of the idea of the Lithuanian capital in Vilnius itself.135 In the autumn, Hymans’s projects inﬂ amed their passions even more, on 20 and 23 October, as well as on 1 November, protest meetings of the residents of Kaunas took place against Hymans’s projects and their supporters.136 At the beginning of November, the military authorities of Lithuania and the highest ofﬁ cers stated to the Government that from a military point of view, the army could assess the adoption of Hymans’s project simply as betrayal.137 The culmination of the tension was an attempt on the life of the Minister and Lithuania’s Representative to the League of Nations Ernestas Galvanauskas in Kaunas at night on 25 November, during which he escaped death by a hair.138 Soon, pressed by the public, the Cabinet of Ministers of Lithuania unanimously rejected Hymans’s project; however, it was only on 24 December that the Government of Lithuania sent a diplomatic note to the League of Nations informing the latter that it could not accept “the reconciliation recommended to it”.139

The Incorporation of Vilnius into Poland

Poland was not going to accept Hymans’s model either. In the summer of 1921, a scenario of Middle Lithuania becoming a part of Poland was created, according to which the elected Parliament of Middle Lithuania had to legalise the incorporation of the Vilnius Region.140 On 30 November, Żeligowski signed a decree on elections to the parliament which were due on 8 January 1922.141 The Committee of Vilnius Lithuanians decided not to participate in these elections – this attitude reﬂ ected the ofﬁ cial position of the Lithuanian government,142 which called the elections a routine attempt to legalise the outcomes of Żeligowski’s aggression.143 In responding to the elections being organised in Vilnius, Prime Minister Grinius read the Government’s declaration at the Constituent Seimas on 17 December 1921 which expressed a protest against Poland’s aspiration to legalise the incorporation of

135 VILNIAUS KELMAS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Vilniaus lietuviai ir mes [Vilnius’ Lithuanians and Us], in: Lietuva from 11.06.1922. 136 Kauno piliečių mitingas [Meeting of the Citizens of Kaunas], in: Laisvė from 22.10.1921; Dėlei antrojo Hymanso projekto [As to the Second Project of Hymans], in: Laisvė from 30.10.1921; J.V.: Bepartinių Kauno piliečių mitingas [Meeting of Non-Party Citizens of Kaunas], in: Laisvė from 04.11.1921. 137 The opinion of the Military Authorities of Lithuania about the military part of the Hymans project, 01.11.1921, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 79, l. 10. 138 GALVA, pp. 202-203. 139 Vyriausybės atsakymas T. Sąjungai [The Government’s Answer to the League of Nations], in: Lietuva from 31.12.1921. 140 SREBRAKOWSKI, pp. 52-53. 141 Ibidem, p. 56. 142 Vilniaus seimas ir Varšuva [Vilnius Parliament and Warsaw], in: Lietuva from 24.11.1921. 143 Tautų Sąjunga ir Vilniaus seimas [The League of Nations and the Vilnius Parliament], in: Lietuva from 08.12.1921.

86 the Vilnius Region. The most signifi cant thing it contained was the promise that after Lithuania had recovered the Vilnius Region, the latter would be given autonomy with its parliament in Vilnius and that the rights of national minorities would be respected.144 The offi cial promise of autonomy given from the rostrum of the Lithuanian Parliament to the Vilnius Region did not mean that the Lithuanian political elite intended to revise its attitude toward Vilnius as the capital of the nation state. Rather it was a declaration by the Lithuanian government confi rming that the political elite understood that it was impossible to ignore the opinion and moods of the residents of the Vilnius Region.145 On the eve of the elections to the Parliament of Middle Lithuania, the press published by the Lithuanians in Vilnius that was intended for Polish-speaking readers argued that Vilnius as a city had a future only if it became the capital of Lithuania. The Lithuanian press accentuated the following: if Vilnius belonged to Lithuania, it would become a prosperous capital where the entire state, cultural and economic life of the country would be concentrated, but if it belonged to Poland, it would soon turn into a provincial and dying small Polish border town.146 It stands to reason that the pro-Polish campaign in Middle Lithuania was not silent, trying to show the achievements and possibilities of Poland as a state and as an anti-thesis in drawing a picture of an under- developed peasant and uneducated Lithuania.147 The elections to the Parliament of Middle Lithuania, without Lithuanians, and with the majority of Jews and Belarusians not taking part in them, where held on 8 January 1922.148 After the elections, Poland decided no longer to show tolerance toward national minorities and it was time for it “to teach” the Lithuanian and Belarusian communities what loyalty was. At night on 19 to 20 January, more than 30 Lithuanian and Belarusian activists were arrested and deported to Lithuania on 6 February. Among the deported ones was the Chairman of the Provisional Committee of Vilnius’ Lithuanians and Headmaster of Vytautas Magnus Secondary School of Vilnius’s Lithuanians Biržiš- ka , a number of Lithuanian teachers, and all the editors of Lithuanian publications.149 In Lithuania, this step made by the Polish government was treated as an attempt to suppress the Lithuanian and Belarusian societies in the Vilnius Region by eliminating their most active fi gures from public life.150 The community of Vilnius’s Lithuanians truly lost its most infl uential activists.

144 The 152nd sitting of the First session on 17 December 1921, in: Steigiamojo, 32 sąs. 145 RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. lapkričio 8-oji – 1922 m. birželio 15-oji, p. 78. 146 GUGA: O przyszłość naszą i Wilna [About our Future and the Future of Vilnius], in: Litwa Niepodległa from 03.12.1921. 147 SREBRAKOWSKI, pp.75-76. 148 At the end of 1921, the Jewish Parties declared their neutral position with a joint statement – no campaigning was carried out either for active participation or for a boycott: LIEKIS, A State, pp. 161-162; WEEKS, Between, p. 219. It seems that the Jewish elite considered Vil- nius’ joining Lithuania a lesser evil, however, according to Weeks, they had no motives to openly declare their pro-Lithuanian position. 149 33: Vilnius-Kaunas, pp. 2-3. 150 Lietuvos piliečių kankinimas Vilniuj [Torture of Lithuanian Citizens in Vilnius], in: Lietu- va from 27.01.1922; Naujas barbarų darbas [New Work of Barbarians], in: Lietuva from 08.02.1922; Lietuvos piliečiai! [Citizens of Lithuania!], in: Lietuva from 16.02.1922.

87 On 13 January 1922, the Council of the League of Nations made a decision on the Lithuanian-Polish confl ict, expressing regret about the failure of intermediation, and with this decision announced that it had completed its mission in resolving the confl ict. At the same time it refused to recognise the lawfulness of the elections to the Parlia- ment of Middle Lithuania.151 On 27 January 1922, Lithuania offered Poland to start direct negotiations, however, on the condition that Poland restore the actual situation of 7 October 1920, and Żeligowski had to leave Vilnius. Lithuania added the following: it was also ready to listen to the opinion of the representatives of the Vilnius Region if the latter “were formed absolutely correctly in a way approved by both states”.152 Poland answered that it did not doubt the lawfulness of the authorities of Middle Lithuania and offered making arrangements about the establishment of relations; in its opinion the dispute was already completed.153 This diplomatic exchange of notes and the declaration of the Government of Lithuania at the Parliament in February 1922154 were merely demonstrating that Lithuania did not renounce the capital. This did not put a stop to the ongoing incorporation of the Vilnius region – on 1 February the Parliament of Middle Lithuania was opened, and on 20 February a resolution was adopted there, thereby Middle Lithuania asked to be accepted into the Polish State.155 On 22 March 1922, the Sejm of Poland granted the request – Middle Lithuania became an integral part of the State of Poland. The offi cial newspaper of the Lithuanian government, having named this news “the end of the masquerade of Middle Lithuania” underlined that this had not changed the attitude of Lithuania, and it would unconditionally strive for the recovery of Vilnius.156 On 19 April 1922, the annexation of Middle Lithuania to Poland was celebrated in ceremonious fashion in Vilnius with Chief of State Piłsudski participating in the celebration. Lithuania responded to the celebrations by organising a protest meeting in the provisional capital on 23 April, during which it was underlined that Lithuania would never renounce its capital and would continue the struggle to recover it.157 The idea to widely celebrate the 600th anniversary of the founding Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania that occurred in April 1922 became an even stronger propaganda response by Lithuania.158 What is telling about this is that the fi rst mention of the name of the city of Vilnius in Duke Gediminas’ letters in 1323 is considered to be

151 VILKELIS, pp. 104-105. 152 Nota Lenkų Vyriausybei [The Note to the Government of Poland], in: Lietuva from 29.01.1922; Paskiausioji Lietuvos Vyriausybės nota lenkams [The Latest Note of the Gov- ernment of Lithuania to the Poles], in: Lietuva from 31.01.1922. 153 Paskiausios lenkų notos [The Latest Notes of the Poles], in: Lietuva from 04.02.1922. 154 The 169th sitting of the ﬁ rst session, 08.02.1922, in: Steigiamojo, 32 sąs. 155 SREBRAKOWSKI, pp. 104-105. 156 Vis tiek užbaigsim savo himną! [We Shall End Our Anthem All the Same!], in: Lietuva from 29.03.1922. 157 Protesto mitingas [Protest Meeting], in: Lietuva from 26.04.1922; Protesto mitingas [Protest Meeting], in: Trimitas 16 (1922), p. 6. 158 VILNIAUS KELMAS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Vilniaus miesto sukaktuvės [Anniversary of the City of Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 14.04.1922.

88 the symbolic year of the birth of the city of Vilnius. The initiators of the anniversary celebration, however, explained to the public that it was the anniversary of the establishment of Vilnius as the capital rather than that of the city of Vilnius that was going to be commemorated, sophistically reasoning that if the ﬁ rst letters of the Grand Duke of Lithuania from Vilnius travelled to Europe in 1323, the capital Vilnius really did exist already in 1322.159 In July 1922, a Committee was set up in Kaunas to commemorate the 600th anniversary of Vilnius, which decided to commemorate the anniversary throughout the entire year.160 The campaign of the capital’s anniversary was accompanied by slogans urging the public to strive for the recovery of Vilnius.161 The essays on the history of the city of Vilnius that appeared at that time underlined that Vilnius was founded and developed as the capital of Lithuania and historically it was a Lithuanian city.162 The culminating celebrations of the anniversary took place in Kaunas on 29 September. The meeting, with the Lithuanian government participating in it, went with prayers “for capital Vilnius that was ripped off and oppressed by foreigners”, with speeches urging people to liberate Vilnius, a ﬂ ight of military aircraft over the participants in the meeting, and artillery salutes in the forts located in places when one approaches the city.163 The meeting of the capital’s anniversary moved from Kaunas to other towns, for example, on 5 October the anniversary was commemorated in Biržai, which was in a remote province of the country.164 It was planned that the anniversary that was begun to be celebrated in the autumn of 1922 would continue into 1923 as well, thus strengthening “the efforts and desire to liberate Vilnius from the hands of the Poles” “in all corners of Lithuania”.165 The Lith- uanian elite sought to turn the celebration of the anniversary of the founding of Vilnius into a propaganda-like manifestation, which was to demonstrate that the Lithuanians had not renounced their capital of Vilnius and would never renounce it.166 To make the citizens of Lithuania remember the lost capital of Lithuania, there was a proposal made by some activists that a monument should be built in Kaunas representing Duke

159 Vilniaus 600 metų sukaktuvės [The 600th Anniversary of Vilnius], in: Trimitas 38 (1922), p. 3; Didelis Lietuvos jubiliejus [The Great Jubilee of Lithuania], in: Trimitas 29 (1922), p. 3; VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 11, pp. 315-316. 160 Vilniaus jubiliejaus iškilmės [Celebrations of Vilnius’ Anniversary], in: Lietuva from 01.10.1922. 161 Vilnius mūsų buvo ir bus [Vilnius was and will be Ours], in: Laisvė from 29.09.1922. 162 PAKEKLIŠKIS: Vilnius (1322-1922), in: Karys 40 (1922), pp. 1-2; BINKIS/TARULIS. 163 D. D.: Vilniaus 600 metų sukaktuvės prasidėjo [The 600th Anniversary of Vilnius Started], in: Laisvė from 01.10.1922. 164 Kun. GASIŪNAS: Vilniaus šešių šimtų metų sukaktuvės Biržuose [The 600th Anniversary of Vilnius in Biržai], in: Laisvė from 18.10.1922. 165 VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 11, p. 316. 166 Vilniaus 600 metų sukaktuvės [The 600th Anniversary of Vilnius], in: Trimitas 38 (1922), pp. 3-4.

89 Medal devoted to commemorating the 600 year anniversary of the founding of Vilnius. Artist P. Rimša. 1923. NMLL

Medal of artist P. Rimša “Vilnius. Yes, Gediminas dreamed in this way in 1323 / Vilnius. Yes, Gediminas did not dream in this way in 1920” obverse, reverse. 1920s. CNM

Gediminas, the founder of Vilnius, on horseback with a sword raised in the direction of Vilnius167 – as though mobilising the public for the liberation of Vilnius. Vilnius’s Lithuanians also commemorated the anniversary of the founding of the capital; however, the latter commemorated the anniversary of the canonisation of St Casimir (1458-1484) on a broader scale in 1922, having turned those celebrations

167 JUOZAS GABRYS: Dėlei Vilniaus įkūrimo 600 metų sukaktuvių [Concerning the 600th Anni- versary of Founding of Vilnius], in: Laisvė from 20.10.1922.

90 into an original manifestation of Lithuanian Vilnius.168 When telling the story of Saint Casimir’s life during the anniversary celebration, it was accentuated that St. Casimir was a Lithuanian and the whole environment surrounding him was Lithuanian – underlining the fact that in the Saint’s time, in the 15th century, all the people in Vilnius, and, of course the St Casimir himself, “still spoke Lithuanian and the city of Vilnius was a real capital of Lithuania”.169 Lithuanians used the image of the Saint, who is considered to be the patron of Lithuania and is related to Vilnius, earlier as well when trying to prove their rights to Vilnius. In the meanwhile the spectacular celebrations of the anniversary of St. Casimir’s canonisation organised by Vilnius’s Lithuanians were presented as the best proof of the vitality of the Lithuanian community in Vilnius.170 The Provisional Committee of Vilnius’ Lithuanians refused to take part in the elections to the Parliament of Poland that took place in October 1922, stating that the Vilni- us Region was an inseparable part of Lithuania, and Vilnius was its capital.171 By boy- cotting the political life of Poland, Vilnius’s Lithuanians demonstrated that they were citizens of Lithuania rather than Poland. This position of the Lithuanian community was in line with the offi cial position of Lithuania – on 7 October 1922, the Lithuanian government appealed to the League of Nations and the governments of other states with an offi cial protest over the elections being held in the Vilnius Region. Lithuania sought to achieve that the League of Nations declare that it considered the question of Vilnius as unsolved, however, its attempts were futile. In February of 1923, the League of Nations decided to liquidate the neutral zone between Lithuania and Poland and the demarcation line was drawn along the Grodno – Vilnius – Daugavpils railway line, leaving it to Poland. At the same time it was noted that Lithuania’s refusal to recognise that decision would have no effect. Following the decision of the League of Nations, on 15 March 1923, the Conference of Ambassadors confi rmed the eastern borders of Poland – the Vilnius Region was recognised as belonging to Poland by a resolution. The problem of Vilnius no longer existed to the League of Nations.172 This did not stamp out Lithuania’s aspiration to recover Vilnius.

168 P. V IEŠTAUTAS [PETRAS KRAUJALIS]: Šv. Kazimiero Jubiliejaus iškilmės Vilniuje 1922 m. [Celebrations of St Casimir’s Jubilee in Vilnius in 1922], in: Garsas from 16.07.1922, pp. 4-7. 169 Šv. Kazimiero kanonizacijos 400 metų sukaktuvės Vilniuje [The 400th Anniversary of St Casimir’s Canonisation in Vilnius], in: Lietuvos laisvė from 13.06.1922. 170 VILNIAUS KELMAS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Vilniaus lietuviai ir mes [Vilnius’ Lithuanians and Us], in: Lietuva from 11.06.1922. 171 Laikinojo Vilniaus Lietuvių Komiteto pareiškimas dėl rinkimų į Varšuvos seimą [Statement of the Provisional Committee of Vilnius’ Lithuanians on the Elections to the Parliament of Warsaw], in: Garsas fom 10.09.1922. 172 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 161-168; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 41-44; VILKELIS, pp. 102-111.

91 IV How to Liberate the Capital? (1923-1939)

The Vilnius Question

The news that the Conference of Ambassadors confi rmed the eastern borders of Poland, and Vilnius found itself in its territory, was received in Lithuania by issuing a statement by an offi cial newspaper that Lithuania would not recognise the borders which divided the territory of Lithuania, and it would not renounce Vilnius.1 The Lithuanian political elite could not come to terms with the idea that the the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors had brought an end to the Vilnius problem. This issue continued to remain among Lithuania’s major state priorities, and the political elite looked for ways of reintroducing it to the international political agenda. However the diplomatic struggle by Lithuanians for Vilnius only became more irrational.2 The Lithuanian political elite imagined the issue of Vilnius not only as an issue of getting back the capital, normalising the relations with Poland and at the same time as an issue of ensuring Lithuania’s international security, but also as an essential issue of fostering a sense of national identity. Relations with Poland, most often simply referred to as the issue of Vilnius, was not only the most important problem of foreign policy, but also a signifi cant factor in its domestic policy in inter-war Lithuania. In the 1920s, this issue was extensively used by parties in Lithuania in their fi ght for dominance in the political life of the country – both during electoral campaigns to parliament and, when in opposition, while criticising the government for their lack of effort in getting Vilnius back. All political parties made use of society’s sensitivity to the issue of Vilnius, however, the Nationalists (Tautininkai) did this most actively.3 The Nationalist press, which carefully observed the political life of the country, would write at the fi rst opportunity they had about the betrayal of national interests that threatened Lithuania if relations with Poland were normalised before Lithuania got Vilnius back. The unresolved territorial confl ict with Poland became an obstacle to dealing with many issues – fi rst of all, in creating international security guarantees for Lithuania and

1 J.A.: Lenkijos sienų nustatymas ir taika [Establishing the Borders of Poland and Peace], in: Lietuva from 16.03.1923. 2 KASPARAVIČIUS, Dvi. 3 ABROMAITIS, Lenkija, p. 96.

92 Cartoon “A Tasty Bite”, depicting the rivalry of the Soviet Union and Poland for Vilnius. Postscript: “Pole. This is my bite today. Russian. This is my bite for tomorrow Lithuanian. You will not see it as your forehead.” Garnys (Heron), 1925, no. 9 ensuring security in Central and Eastern Europe. Both Soviet imperialism and German revisionism made use of the confl ict over Vilnius as a factor, which hampering efforts of the Baltic States and Poland to create an effective system of collective security.4 The Vilnius issue even became an obstacle in creating an independent province of the Catholic Church in Lithuania and preparing to conclude a concordat with the Vatican because Lithuania sought to achieve that the Vatican, disregarding the actual borders, should attribute the Vilnius Diocese to the Lithuanian Church province. Poland was quicker than Lithuania as it concluded a concordat with the Holy See in February 1925, according to which Vilnius and the territory of the Vilnius Region was given over to the Poland’s ecclesiastical province (whereby the Vilnius Archdiocese was formed).5 This news caused a wave of public discontent in Lithuania, which resulted in protest meetings. Public anger was unleashed upon the head of the representative of the Vatican Antonio Zechini. The crowd threw rotten eggs at the windows of the fl at of the representative of the Vatican, and the diplomat was forced to leave the country.6 The Christian Democrats, who were in a coalition that governed the country, found themsleves under an avalanche of criticism about the above-mentioned concordat concluded between Poland and the Vatican. The Peasant Populists (Valstiečiai liaudnin- inkai), followed by the Nationalists7, simply took delight in this theme in their political propaganda campaign, demanding that the Government resign. The fi rst Sunday of

4 LAURINAVIČIUS, Politika ir diplomatija; BUTKUS, Attitudes, pp. 131-160; KASPARAVIČIUS, Molotovo, pp. 73-88; BUTKUS, Vokietijos ir SSSR, pp. 68-72; IDEM, Wpływ, pp. 101-123; IDEM, Vokietijos ir sovietų, pp. 21-41; BUTKUS, The Impact, pp. 215-233. 5 KASPARAVIČIUS, Tarp, pp. 145-163. 6 Ibidem, pp. 165-175. 7 ŽINYS: Vatikanas, Vilnius, Lietuva [The Vatican, Vilnius, Lithuania], in: Lietuvis from 13.03.1925; ROMAS STRIUPAS: Lietuvos skriaudos dėl lenkų konkordato [Lithuania’s Offen- ces because of the Polish Concordat], in: Lietuvis from 13.03.1925; VIRBALAITIS: Kas kaltas, o ką muša [Who is to Blame and Who is Beaten], in: Lietuvis from 13.03.1925; IZ. DIDŽIULIS [IZIDORIUS TAMOŠAITIS]: Paskaitų diena [The Day of Lectures], in: Lietuvis from 13.03.1925.

93 March 1925 was spent with the opposition giving public lectures about Vilnius that had been lost because of the government – supposedly it was the government of Lithuania rather than the Holy See that was to.8 The Nationalists repeated that nobody would make Lithuanians give up Vilnius.9 In the summer of 1925 while criticising the foreign policy of the government, the Nationalists, who sought to get back Vilnius, argued that it was possible to get back Vilnius from Poland only by force, and the Soviet Union was a country Lithuania could largely rely on in its ﬁ ght against Poland.10 In the autumn of 1925, after passions regarding the concordat had somewhat sub- sided, the Government came under a new wave of criticism from the opposition for its negotiations with Poland in Copenhagen and Lausanne – the Peasant Populists and the Nationalists levelled criticism against the government too.11 The Nationalists threatened that the government’s negotiations with Poland led to the renunciation of Vilnius because it was sought to normalise the relations between the states even without mentioning the Vilnius issue – as if it did not exist.12 This time the government was unable to withstand the political pressure – the Government headed by Vytautas Petrulis resigned. On 4 April 1926 Pope Pius XI announced his Papal Bull Lituanorum gente declaring the establishment of a Lithuanian ecclesiastical province, which consisted of the Kaunas Archdiocese together with the following four dioceses: Panevėžys, Telšiai (together with the Klaipėda prelature), Kaišiadorys and Vilkaviškis. The opposition accused the government of political duplicity – it was supposedly declared to the public that Vilnius was not renounced; however, at the same time they joyfully welcomed the news about the establishment of a Lithuanian ecclesiastical province without noticing that the Vilnius Diocese no longer existed in Lithuania.13 The Nationalists accused the inﬂ uential Christian-Democrat activist-clergy (Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mečislovas Reinys and the Chairman of the Parliament Justinas Staugaitis) who approved of concluding the concordat and who were prospective candidates to become bishops, of exchanging Vilnius for the bishop’s mitre. Once again the opposition took advantage of the opportunity to accuse the Christian Democrats who were in power of betraying Lithuania’s national interests, which was renouncing Vilnius in favour of Poland.14 Fierce criticism of the government in the Nationalist press was judged to be

8 IZ. DIDŽIULIS [IZIDORIUS TAMOŠAITIS]: Paskaitų diena [The Day of Lectures], in: Lietuvis from 13.03.1925; A. ŠILEIKA: Paskaitos [Lectures], in: Lietuvis from 03.04.1925. 9 IZ. DIDŽIULIS [IZIDORIUS TAMOŠAITIS]: Vilniaus praradimo priežastys [Causes for the Loss of Vilnius], in: Lietuvis from 29.05.1925. 10 AUGUSTINAS VOLDEMARAS: Su Vilnium ar be Vilniaus? [With Vilnius or Without Vilnius?], in: Lietuvis from 26.06.1925. 11 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 173-183; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 61-79. 12 A. SM. [ANTANAS SMETONA]: Kryžkelėje ... [On the Crossroads …], in: Lietuvis from 16.10.1925; IDEM: Rūku apsitraukė [Covered with Mist], in: Lietuvis from 30.10.1925. 13 V.I.: Karas, Įvyko? [The War. Has it Taken Place?], in: Lietuvos žinios from 10.04.1926; L.N. [LIUDAS NOREIKA]: Nebepakenčiama [No Longer Bearable], in: Lietuvis from 09.04.1926. 14 L.N. [LIUDAS NOREIKA]: Nebepakenčiama [No Longer Bearable], in: Lietuvis from 09.04.1926.; A. SM. [ANTANAS SMETONA]: Sužalotoji politika [Damaged Policy], in: Lietu- vis from 16.04.1926; L. N. [LIUDAS NOREIKA]: Ir už ką? [And what for?], in: Lietuvis from

94 Cartoon depicting Vilnius escaping from Poland to Lithuania. Postscript: “Help! Help! I will not hold! ...” Garnys (Heron), 1924, no. 2 slander, and a heavy fi ne was imposed on the editors. In informing their readers of the fi ne imposed on their editors, they maintained that they had been punished for defending Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius.15 In June 1926, a left-wing government (power was concentrated in the hands of the coalition of the Lithuanian Peasant Populist Union and the Lithuanian Social Demo- cratic Party) was formed after elections to the Third Seimas, with Sleževičius becoming Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. The goverment, seeking to popularise the issue of Vilnius abroad, turned to Moscow. On 28 September 1926, the Soviet-Lith- uanian Non-Aggression Pact was signed in Moscow. This pact, and the documents accompanying it, could have been interpreted in such a way that the Soviet Union confi rmed that the peace treaty between Lithuania and the Soviet Russia concluded on 12 July 1920, in which it recognised Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius, was still in effect. Though the treaty was met with caution in Europe, the big European countries had to admit that the issue of Vilnius truly was unresolved, and France, as well as the U. K., started pressing the following hope upon Lithuanian diplomats: if Lithuania did not decisively speed up the solution of the Vilnius issue and stayed under the infl uence of the Westen world, the Vilnius issue might be resolved in favour of Lithuania under certain circumstances.16 Until the autumn of 1926, Lithuania’s foreign policy was oriented towards a suffi ciently rapid solution of the Vilnius issue. Even daring and courageous scenarios of getting back Vilnius were deliberated. It was thought that the issue of Vilnius could be resolved in favour of Lithuania if the inhabitants of the Vilnius Region – Lithuanians and Belarusians – were to rise up in rebellion. The Government of Lithuania even fi nancially supported Belarussian and Ukrainian organisations operating in Poland. It

16.04.1926; AUGUSTINAS VOLDEMARAS: Vieniems laimėjimas, kitiems pralaimėjimas [Some are Winners, Others are Losers], in: Lietuvis from 23.04.1926. 15 Ir vėl mus nubaudė [We have been Punished Again], in: Lietuvis from 30.04.1926. 16 KASPARAVIČIUS, Didysis.

95 Cartoon “Pole in the Vilnus Re- gion”. Postscript: “By Jove, I will tumble from the damned pagan horse, if he does not stop kicking! ... Even now I am only holding on by only sitting on his neck” Vilnius – like a horse stolen from Lithuanian stables, on which it is difficult for the Pole stealing him to remain. In Lithuania there was the conviction that it is difficult for Poland to keep Vilnius in its hands. Garnys (Heron), 1924, no. 6 stands to reason that nothing came of the planned revolt.17 These secret adventurist expectations were reﬂ ected in a utopian novel by Kazys Puida published in 1927, which told readers how Lithuanian patriots staged a rebellion in the Vilnius Region, how the Belarusians joined them, and after the rebellion had won out how they asked the Gov- ernment of Lithuania to annex the Vilnius Region to Lithuania.18 After the autumn of 1926, there was a realistic understanding that a quick solution of the issue of Vilnius was impossible, and that it was necessary to prepare for a long diplomatic struggle, because a solution for the Vilnius issue was closely tied to the order that had formed in Europe and the balance of power. Though the coup d’etat that took place in Lithuania on 17 December 1926 changed the country’s political life radically, which was the establishment of Smetona’s authoritarian regime, no essential sudden changes occurred in the foreign policy. The Nation- alists followed the policy carried out by the Government of the Christian Democrats and Peasant Populists. The foreign policy goals remained the same, with the aspiration of getting Vilnius back being one of them. Prime Minister Voldemaras, who became the strategist of Lithuania’s foreign policy, considered getting Vilnius back as a condition for the sovereignty of the State of Lithuania.19 He hoped to ﬁ nd support in Moscow and Berlin for getting the capital back, paying greater attention to Berlin because he had done some work in this respect in Moscow in the form of the 1926 Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviet Union and Lithuania. Voldemaras hoped that Lithuania could

17 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 168-171; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 46-48; KASPARA- VIČIUS, Gudų, pp. 3-27. 18 PUIDA. 19 ŽALYS, pp. 231, 256.

96 get back the capital if a war between Poland and the Soviet Union broke out, which seemed to him unavoidable.20 The declaration of the new government traditionally underlined that “Lithuania has to be independent with its capital in Vilnius” and the Government was not going to refuse even to sit down at the negotiation table with Poland if these negotiations complied with the aspirations of the Lithuanian government.21 This statement made by Volde- maras was heard in Warsaw, and at the beginning of 1927 confi dential contacts began to be established between Lithuania and Poland. Voldemaras adhered to the principle that it was necessary for Lithuania to renounce the policy of being in a state of war with Po- land because this situation posed a threat to the country’s security – after nearly a decade had passed after the declaration of Lithuania’s independence, some Western politicians still had doubts whether the small state of Lithuania, which was in permanent confl ict with Poland, was capable of existing independently.22 However, entering into a dialogue with Poland did not mean that Lithuania was going to renounce Vilnius. On the contrary, there were plans to use the dialogue with Poland, with which they sought to reduce the threat of Poland’s aggression, for bringing the issue of Vilnius to the international arena as well. Soon the Nationalists experienced what, they had repeatedly used unscrupulously on their political opponents while in opposition. This time their political opponents started to criticize the government of the Nationalists because of their negotiations with Poland, expressing suspicion concerning the betrayal of national interests, that being a possible renunciation of Vilnius. It should be noted that all the political parties of Lithuania adhered to the principle that relations with Poland could be normalised only if Vilnius were returned to Lithuania. It was only the Social Democrats who had their own attitude toward the Vilnius issue: they urged all the governments to fi ght for Vilnius by only using economic and social instruments.23 Therefore the Social Democrats tried to prove to the Nationalists who were in power the following: if a truly democratic society with prospering economy and social welfare were created in Lithu- ania, the Vilnius Region itself would ask to be joined to Lithuania.24 In 1927, the dynamics of Lithuanian-Polish relations were marked by ups and downs – from gestures demonstrating acceptance all the way to repressive campaigns against national minorities (against the Lithuanians in Poland and Poles in Lithuania) as a tool used for exerting pressure on a neighbouring country. In December 1927, at a session of the League of Nations Council held in Geneva, with the Prime Minister of Lithuania Voldemaras and Prime Minister of Poland Piłsudski participating, the “state

20 Ibidem, p. 245. 21 Keturioliktos Lietuvos Vyriausybės politinė deklaracija III Seime [Political Declaration of the 14th Government of Lithuania in the Third Seimas], in: Seimo, pp. 1-4. 22 ŽALYS, p. 323. 23 ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 97-98. 24 Dėl prarasto Vilniaus gedulos [Mourning over Lost Vilnius], in: Socialdemokratas from 13.10.1927; Vėl Vilniaus klausimu [Again on the Issue of Vilnius], in: Socialdemokratas from 20.10.1927.

97 Cartoon “The Political Conjunc- ture of Eastern Europe”. Seeking the recovery of Vilnius for Lithuania Lithuanian Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Augustinas Voldemaras is walking on a tightrope, with hostile neighbors – the Soviet Union and Poland threatening. Spaktyva 1927, no. 9-10 of war” between Lithuania and Poland was abolished.25 The resolution adopted on 10 December declared that Lithuania did not consider itself as being in a state of war with Poland, and Poland declared that it recognised Lithuania’s independence and territorial integrity. At the end of the resolution, it was stated that “the Resolution is not concerned at all with the affairs towards which both Governments have a different attitude”. The last point of the resolution could have been interpreted in such a way that the agreement reached did not mean that the issue of Vilnius had been resolved26 – Lithuania believed it ﬁ rmly and tried to persuade others of that too. However, following the negotiations in Geneva, there was no turning point in Lith- uanian-Polish relations – the countries did not establish any diplomatic relations after they put an end to the formal state of war, and relations between the countries entered a kind of stage akin to a “cold war”. Upon return from Geneva, Voldemaras stated at his ﬁ rst press conference that he was going to receive Poland’s diplomatic representative only in Vilnius.27 Before long, Lithuania clearly demonstrated that it had not relin- quished its rights to Vilnius; in 1928, an article that was not included in the previous Constitution appeared in the Constitution of Lithuania, which declared that “Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania” and lawfully the capital could be moved to some other location only temporarily.28 The then-experts on Lithuania’s constitutional law explained that from a legal point of view it was logical, because the 1918 declaration of independence of Lithuania was announced as the re-establishment of the old state of Lithuania, and that the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Vilnius; Vilnius was in the terri-

25 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 197-208; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 100-119; VILKE- LIS, pp. 152-161. 26 ŽALYS, pp. 340-342. 27 Ibidem, p. 341. 28 Lietuvos valstybės konstitucijos, p. 45.

98 tory whose belonging to Lithuania was recognised by Soviet Russia in its 1920 Peace Treaty; Lithuania never recognised Poland’s rights to Vilnius.29 In the 1930s Lithuanian-Polish relations, to be more exact, their absence, as though became conserved. At the same time there were many mutual confi dential attempts to establish them – secret Lithuanian-Polish diplomacy experienced a golden age.30 However the negotiations broke down each time after a Lithuanian diplomat reminded the Poles of his country’s rights to Vilnius.31 Lithuania took the position of permanent protest on the seized capital, both inside the country and in the international arena. Declarations that the Lithuanians would never renounce Vilnius even dominated in intellectual cultural discourse in Lithuania.32 True, sometimes statements were made publicly (fi rst of all on the side of the opposition) that for the sake of Lithuania’s security it was necessary to normalise relations with Poland and postpone solving the issues of Vilnius, because the establishment of relations with Poland did not mean giving up Vilnius in favour of the latter.33 The number of these kinds of statements increased after the Nazis, who nurtured revanchist plans, had come to power in Germany in 1933, and the creation of a collective security system in Central Eastern Europe became vitally important. In the spring of 1934, the daily Diena [Day] published answers to the ques- tionnaire “If we start the negotiations with the Poles?” that were made by public fi gures representing different political camps. The answers can be generalised as follows: in the presence of a threat posed by Germany it would be necessary to normalise relations with Poland, however it cannot be done by renouncing Vilnius.34 In the middle of the 1930s Römeris noticed that the issue of Vilnius had become an irrational and emotional obstacle, which turned the whole political elite into hostages on both sides of the administrative line; therefore a compromise in the argument over Vilnius was impossible, and it was absurd to expect the political elite to offer new ways of solving the problem – “the old leaders do not forget their methods and predjudices”. It seemed that only the withdrawal of the political elite of the older generation would become a serious precondition for the course of a more realistic policy which would be based on strengthening the relations between the Baltic States and Poland in the presence of a threat posed by Germany.35 At the same time the Lithuanian elite did not stop to fear that Poland, which had occupied and Polonised the Vilnius Region, was simply preparing the base for further aggression into the depths of Lithuania and when,

29 RĖMERIS, Lietuvos, pp. 283-285. 30 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 224-250; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 228-308. 31 KASPARAVIČIUS, Don Kichotas, p. 65. 32 M. BŪTAUTAS: Ar pradėtini santykiai su Lenkija? [Are Relations with Poland to be Estab- lished?], in: Naujoji Romuva 196 (1934), pp. 706-708; FABIJONAS KEMĖŠIS: Kovos dėl Vil- niaus taktikos klausimu [On the Issue of Tactics of the Struggle for Vilnius], in: Naujoji Romuva 199 (1934), pp. 767-768. 33 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 229-233. 34 Jei pradėsime derybas su lenkais? [If We Start Negotiations with the Poles?], in: Diena from 08.04.1934; Jei mes pradėsime derybas su lenkais? [If we Start Negotiations with the Poles?], in: Diena from 15.04.1934. 35 MYKOLAS RÖMERIS: Vilnius ir Pamarys [Vilnius and the Sea-Coast], in: Židinys 12 (1934), pp. 487-491.

99 in its opinion, the Vilnius Region was suffi ciently Polonised, and Poland suffi ciently strengthened, it would try to “cut out” a corridor to the Baltic Sea and take possession of the whole of Lithuania. An opinion became rooted ever more fi rmly in Lithuanian society that no discussions or meetings with the Poles would resolve the issue of Vil- nius; therefore it was not worth re-examining relations with them but only waiting for “an event of a large scale in Europe” that would redraw the borders of the countries.36 Therefore geographer Kazys Pakštas’ proposal that was presented to the public in 1935 to solve the Vilnius issue (and at the same time the issue of the autonomy of the Klaipė- da (Memel) territory) by introducing a federal state structure (to form three administrative units in the country – Klaipėda, Kaunas and Vilnius cantons, and to turn Vilnius, as a federal capital, into an independent administrative unit and an offi cially bilingual city)37 was assessed by some as an exceptionally scientifi c idea, and as a utopian vision by others, but on the whole everybody found this proposal unrealistic and offered too late.38 It was in the 1930s that part of the Lithuanian political elite started to perceive ever more clearly that a head-on confrontation with Poland led down a blind alley, because Lithuania’s feasible allies, those being Germany and the Soviet Union, were eager to try and implement their imperialistic plans by questioning the inviolability of Poland’s borders and thus destabilising the security in the region, rather than help the Lithuani- ans get back their capital city of Vilnius. As far back as the autumn of 1924 Ivan Lor- ents, the envoy of the Soviet Union to Lithuania, stated that the aim of the Soviet state with respect to Vilnius was the aspiration to turn this issue into a subject of negotiations between Poland and the Soviet Union, and that in the future it would be possible to integrate the historical capital of Lithuania along with Western Belarus into the Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus.39 In 1935, a representative of the ruling elite made a statement that Lithuania was not set against regulating relations with Poland and “it would be even easier psychologically to come to an agreement now because Lithuania had time to make certain of the danger posed by Nazi Germany (at that time Lithuania had already experienced the threat of Nazi revanchism in the Klaipėda Region). However, to normalise the relations with Poland, the latter had to do the following: to recognise that the Vilnius issue had not been resolved yet, to grant Lithuania “certain sovereign rights in Vilnius” without delay and to put a stop to the persecutions of Lithuanians.40 Experienced Lithuanian diplomat Dovas Zaunius added: Lithuania would not renounce Vilnius, however upon

36 K AZYS PAKŠTAS: Vilniaus problema [Vilnius and the Sea-coast], in: Židinys 2 (1935), pp. 129, 135. 37 Ibidem 3 (1935), pp. 246-262. 38 ANTANAS JUŠKA: Vilniaus ir santykių su lenkais klausimu [On the Issue of Vilnius and Rela- tions with the Poles], in: Naujoji Romuva 29-30 (1935), p. 557. 39 KASPARAVIČIUS, Dvi. 40 A. JUŠKA: Vilniaus ir santykių su lenkais klausimu [On the Issue of Vilnius and Relations with the Poles], in: Naujoji Romuva 29-30 (1935), p. 559.

100 getting back the capital, it would become a country friendly towards Poland.41 Hence, even the conviction of the threat posed by Nazi Germany failed to change the position of the Lithuanian political elite concerning Vilnius and relations with Poland. That was not only the attitude of the Lithuanian politicians intended for the people overwhelmed by an anti-Polish mood – the unofﬁ cial representative of Poland in Lithuania Tadeusz Katelbach also heard this position defended by Lithuanian politicians in private conversations in 1933-1937.42 In essence there was no public discussion on the problems dealings with the Vilnius issue in Lithuania, which held to a position of “a permanent protest”. The mobilising publicistic writing served as a substitute for the analysis of the situation in the Vilnius Region. Attempts to look at the Vilnius issue in a more problematic way were made in the press put out by the VLU. In the discourse on the liberation of Vilnius that was developed by the latter, when analysing the situation of the Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region and considering who could become the Lithuanians’ allies in their struggle for their rights, attention was directed to other national communities in Poland – the Belarusians and Ukrainians. The news that the activists of the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian communities in Poland who met at the Ukrainian club in Warsaw on 27 November 1929 decided to join efforts in ﬁ ghting for the rights of their communities as national minorities was welcomed enthusiastically in Lithuania. It was stated that the aim of Lithuanians was a joint front with the Belarusians and Ukrainians.43 Then it was even optimistically calculated that a committee made up of the representatives of the communities would represent one third of the total population of Poland, and the area inhabited by them would cover half the territory of Poland.44 These conferences, however, did not develop into joint activity, and a couple of years later the Lithuanians stated with great regret that the creation of the joint Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrain- ian front did not move forward at all.45 The idea died quietly. In the Vilnius liberation propaganda discourse of the 1930s, Lithuanians considered the Belarusians to be their primary ally in their struggle for Vilnius.46 Their activity in the Vilnius Region was closely observed.47 The Belarusians were even referred to as the nation closest to the Lithuanians in the past and present, whom they were “connected to by a common scourge – Polish occupation”.48 However, radical Belarusian activists

41 DOVAS ZAUNIUS: Šiandien pažiūrėjus į Vilniaus problemą [Having Looked at the Problem of Vilnius Today], in: Naujoji Romuva 25-26 (1935), pp. 509-512. 42 TADEUSZ KATELBACH’s reports, in: AAN, MSZ, vol. 6078, 6079, 6080, 6081. 43 Prof. M. Biržiškos pirmoji kalba Amerikoje [Prof. Mykolas Biržiška’s First Speech in Amer- ica], in: Mūsų Vilnius 5 (1931), p. 97. 44 J.P.: Ukrainiečiai, lietuviai ir gudai pagaliau įkūrė sąjungą [The Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarusians Established a Union At Last], in: Mūsų Vilnius 1 (1930), pp. 15-16. 45 VYGANDAS [JUOZAS PURICKIS]: Vieningas frontas [The United Front], in: Mūsų Vilnius 10 (1931), p. 221. 46 ZIGMAS ŽEMAITIS: Gudai ir mes [Belarusians and Us], in: Mūsų Vilnius 1 (1930), p. 14. 47 B. ŠĖMIS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Iš Vilniaus krašto gudų kovos 1928 m. [From the Struggle of the Belarusians of the Vilnius Region in 1928], in: Mūsų Vilnius 2 (1929), pp. 100-106. 48 VYGANDAS [JUOZAS PURICKIS]: Gudai [The Belarusians], in: Mūsų Vilnius 19 (1931), p. 433.

101 sometimes made claims to the exclusive rights of Belarusians to Vilnius, however Lith- uanian activists urged their fellow nationals to ignore them and to maintain as close relations with the Belarusians as possible and support the objectives of the Belarusian National Movement. Lithuanian activists had no doubt that the Belarusians would be loyal citizens of Lithuania who did not question the rights of the Lithuanians to Vil- nius.49 Responding to these ideas, Belarusian activist Klaudijus Duž-Duševskis, who lived in Lithuania, stated that the Belarusians could not relinguish all rights to Vilnius, a city which the Belarusians were connected to by “their glorious past” and which was their most important centre of Belarusian activity in Poland. However, at the same time the Belarusians understood very well the signifi cance of Vilnius to Lithuania and knew “this strong attachment of the Lithuanians to their historical capital” and were ready to fi ght together with the Lithuanians so that Vilnius would belong to Lithuania – understandably having already agreed on the national rights of Belarusians in the Vilnius Re- gion prior to that.50 In sharing mutual sympathies, Biržiška warned that the joint struggle that united the Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians against Poland and mutual sympathies should not turn into an attempt to restore the joint state with them.51 The Lithuanian political elite did not entertain plans concerning a joint Lithuanian-Belaru- sian state – its vision was a nation state, which is why they, as they did earlier, sought to have the kind of territory where Lithuanians would be dominant, with the representatives of national minorities constituting as small a number of citizens as possible. After getting Vilnius back, the Belarusians could only hope for cultural autonomy. The Lithuanian political elite vaguely imagined the situation in the Vilnius Region and the expectations of society there. It seems that the representatives of the elite understood this for the fi rst time in 1927 after visiting Vilnius during the funeral of Ba- sanavičius , known as the “patriarch of the nation”. After that trip, the Prime Minister of Lithuania received a proposal by Zigmas Žemaitis, Chairman of the Union of Vilnius Residents, to establish a permanent advisory body on the issues of Vilnius under the Government.52 The Prime Minister approved of the idea and suggested that the project of a specifi c institution should be prepared – so in November 1927 the draft Statute of the Council for the Affairs of the Vilnius Region was drawn up.53 According to the authors of the draft Statute, the Council was to fi ll the vacuum left by the Commission of Eastern Lithuania at the Cabinet of Ministers that functioned from 1920 to 1922, which

49 ZIGMAS ŽEMAITIS: Gudai ir mes [Belarusians and Us], in: Mūsų Vilnius 2 (1930), pp. 40-42; E. K. JANUTIS: Apie lietuvių gudų santykius [On Lithuanian-Belarusian Relations], in: Mūsų Vilnius 21 (1930), pp. 427-428. 50 KLAUDIJUS DUŽ-DUŠAUSKAS: Gudai ir Vilnius [Belarusians and Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 5 (1929), pp. 207-208; K. GUDAS [IDEM], pp. 8-15. 51 MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA: Lietuvių, gudų ir ukrainiečių politinis bendradarbiavimas [Political Co- operation of Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians], in: Mūsų Vilnius 5 (1932), pp. 97-98. 52 Chairman of the Union of Vilnius Residents Zigmas Žemaitis’ Memorandum on the issues of the Lithuanians in Vilnius Region in 1927, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 214. 53 A letter of Chairman of the Union of Vilnius Residents Zigmas Žemaitis of 22.11.1927 to the Prime Minister, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 299.

102 was the government expert on the issues of Vilnius.54 The initiators of the founding of the new institution saw its mission fi rst and foremost as an attempt to strengthen the situation of the community of Vilnius’s Lithuanians.55 The process of creating the commission lasted for some time – it was only in 1930 that the confi dential Commission on Vilnius Affairs was set up under the Government and only a very narrow circle of people knew about its existance. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and National De- fence, the representatives of the VLU, the Union of Lithuanian Rifl emen, and the Union of Vilnius Residents became members of the Commission. The main objective of the commission was to analyse the situation of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region and to search for means to strengthen the position of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region, as well as to stimulate their economic and cultural activity. The commission became a kind of expert on the Vilnius issue, which analysed issues from fi nancial assistance for Lithuanians to their relations with other national minorities in the Vilnius Region. It also coordinated the support provided to Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region.56 At the beginning of the 1930s, an idea emerged to found an Institute of Eastern Lithuania Studies at Vytautas Magnus University, the mission of which was to coordinate scientific research efforts on the Vilnius Region.57 In the 1930s VLU activists repeatedly spoke about the necessity of having an independent scientifi c institution to research historical, etnographical, geographical, economic, legal and political issues and in 1937, the Stat- ute of the Vilnius Institute was drawn up; however this institution was not established.58 Hence, the confi dential Commission on Vilnius Affairs, which concentrated its attention on the situation of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region and was little concerned with other issues, became the sole expert on the issue of Vilnius. In the 1930s the possibility of getting back Vilnius appeared very remote – one Lithuanian activist noted that Lithuania could only get the capital back owing to “some lucky combination of different factors”. Therefore, in essence, there were no discussions about the possible diffi culties of the integration of this region into Lithuanian nation state. Only a warning was publicly issued that it was not fi tting to expect that

54 Explanations of Chairman of the Union of Vilnius Residents Zigmas Žemaitis regarding the plan to establish the Council of Vilnius Region Affairs submitted to the Prime Minister on 23.11.1927, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 275. 55 ZIGMAS ŽEMAITIS: On the Issue of our Activity in Vilnius Region and the Campaign on the Arrangement of that Region, 12.03.1930 [?] [manuscript of the Memorandum], in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 267. 56 A report of Chairman of the Commission on Vilnius Affairs Zigmas Žemaitis to the Prime Minister about the activity of the Commission on Vilnius Affairs of 11.02.1940, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 297. 57 Draft project of the Statute of the Institute of Eastern Lithuania Studies in Vytautas Magnus University, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 801. 58 A. JUŠKA: Instituto Vilniaus problemoms tirti klausimu [On the Issue of the Institute to Study the Problems of Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 13 (1935), p. 193; DOVAS ZAUNIUS: Mokslinis Vilniaus vadavimo darbas [Research Work on the Liberation of Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 21 (1936), pp. 344-345; Vilniaus instituto įstatai [The Statute of Vilnius Institute], in: Mūsų Vilnius 3 (1937), p. 49.

103 integration of the Vilnius Region into the Lithuanian state would be easy and the Lith- uanians were urged to begin getting ready for this.59 Meanwhile the government stated to the public at every opportunity that Vilnius was and would be the capital of the Lithuanians and that nobody would thwart the Lithuanian nation’s aim to get it back,60 and if Poland wanted to have good relations with Lithuania it had to give Vilnius back.61 This went on until 17 March 1938, when Poland made Lithuania establish diplomatic relations by means of an ultimatum note. Lithuania yielded to the pressure and established diplomatic relations with their ”bitter- est enemy” though the political elite swore that it would never shake hands with Poland in a friendly way until Poland gave Vilnius back.

Vilnius in the Discourse of Lithuanian Nationalism

From the autumn of 1920, when Vilnius was taken by the Polish Army, the loss of this city was treated in Lithuania as the greatest threat to Lithuania’s sovereignty. Lithuania was plagued with anxiety that the Polish Army could march in the direction of Kaunas at any minute, and Vilnius, which was in the hands of Poland, was seen as a hostage, with which Poland would try to seize the whole of Lithuania. The Lithuanian political and cultural elite suffered from a complex of national and cultural inferiority because of Vilnius, which had been lost. This inferiority of Lithuania was pressed upon Lithuani- ans by the press of Poland and what was known as Middle Lithuania, which imitated a

Cartoon “The dreams of Piłsudski”. Postscript: Piłsudski. When I march through Vilnius to Kaunas, I will get the crown of the king of Poland. Lithuanian. More likely, you will receive a bullet for degenerates to the forehead“ In Lithuania the opinion prevailed that Poland needed Vil- nius only so that with its assistance it could seize all of Lithuania. Garnys (Heron), 1926, no. 6

59 S TASYS ŠALKAUSKIS: Vilniaus atvadavimas ir tautinio mūsų gyvenimo problemos [Liberation of Vilnius and Problems of our National Life], in: Mūsų Vilnius 1-2 (1937), pp. 6-7. 60 Tautos Vado Užlėnyje pasakyta kalba [The Speech Delivered by the Leader of the Nation in Užlėnis], in: Lietuvos aidas from 14.06.1935. 61 ANTANAS SMETONA: Lietuvių tauta ir jos paskirtis [The Lithuanian Nation and its Mission], in: Vairas 4 (1936), p. 370.

104 Medal (reverse) of artist P. Rimša, “The Union Wants”. 1920s. CNM state, and which, when speaking about the Republic of Lithuania, even used pejorative names such as Kauno Lietuva (Litwa Kowieńska) [the Lithuania of Kaunas] or Kaunija (Kowienczyzna) [Kaunas Region].62 In this way it was as though sought to suggest the idea to the Lithuanian society that Lithuania without Vilnius was not Lithuania, or, in the best case, only a Lithuania of Kaunas and it was only governance of Vilnius that granted the right to the state to be called Lithuania. However, it was not necessary to instil this idea in the Lithuanian elite – they suffered from an inferiority complex because of their lost Vilnius all the same. Lithuanian society did not feel safe even after the Conference of Ambassadors had confi rmed the eastern borders of Poland in 1923. There was strong feeling of apprehen- sion that Poland would not be content with the Vilnius Region, and people thought that the Poles needed Vilnius not because of “its beautiful environs or historical honour, but that it could subjugate the whole of Lithuania from Vilnius”.63 Vladas Putvinskis, Com- mander of the Para-military Nationalist Organisation of Rifl emen, drew the following dramatic alternative to the rifl emen of the provincial town of Kelmė:

These people are asking: what do we need Vilnius for? We have our Kelmė. We can buy and sell everything that we need in Kelmė. There is a church for pious poeple, an inn for drunkards, a warm tea-room for the tired people in Kelmė. Is it worth all this trouble for that distant Vilnius [...] This is what I am going to tell them: If we do not take Vilnius away from the Poles, the time will come when we lose Kelmė too. If we do not go to Vilnius, the Poles will come to Kelmė.64

62 KARČIAUSKAITĖ, p. 192. 63 HELOTAS: Skausmo valandoje [In the Hour of Pain], in: Lietuva from 15.04.1923. 64 VLADAS PUTVINSKIS: Šaulio kalba [The Riﬂ eman’s Speech], in: Mūsų Vilnius 3 (1929), p. 138.

105 Poster “Let Us Liberate Vilnius! Destroy the leech – parasite of Warsaw”. Artist P. Rimša. Kaunas. 1924. CNM

This dramatic alternative that was proclaimed contained a combination of real fear concerning Poland’s military aggression that did not leave the people in peace as well as an attempt by the political elite to use this fear of aggression as a mobilising measure to consolidate the ethnic Lithuanian community. There was an attitude that became even more deeply rooted in Lithuania, which was that the only right tactics in relations with Poland for preserving one’s political and cultural sovereignty was severing all kinds of relations with Poland until it gave Vilnius back. According to Lithuanian geographer Kazys Pakštas, this was how “the masterpiece of the passive resistance of Lithuanians” was born - the Kaunas-Vilnius railway line overgrown with small pine trees near Vievis.65 Lithuania closed down all the roads and paths leading to Poland for an undetermined amount of time. The national Lithuanian intelligentsia had the image of a Lithuanian territory (in an ethnographical sense) with Vilnius in it. Though the boundaries of this Lithuanian territory were not always clear in the minds of the national intelligentsia, all were unanimous as to the centre of this Lithuanian territory, with that centre being Vilnius. The

65 PAKŠTAS, p. 152.

106 ideal of nationalism, which demanded that the borders of the national space and the state should coincide, provided additional sustainability to this image. Meanwhile a reality that was far from the ideal of nationalism gave birth to a feeling of inferiority in terms of the state and culture. It was sought to get back Vilnius together with the space that was regarded as a Lithuanian one, not only as the gurantor of the state’s sovereignty and security. In the mid–1920s there was an opinion that prevailed among the Lithuanian intelligentsia that Lithuania on the whole had no future without Vilnius. If politician Juozas Purickis considered Vilnius to be an economically and politically vital city that was necessary for Lithuania,66 the writer Juozas Tumas (Vaižgantas), like other representatives of the Lithuanian cultural and political elite, treated the loss of Vilnius not only as a kidnapped part of the homeland, but also as an attempt at seizing the cultural tradition of the Lithuanian nation along with Vilnius.67 In 1926, Vaižgantas saw the Vilnius issue as a dramatic alternative: “Either we shall liberate Vilnius for ourselves, and it will happen within a short time, or we shall perish together with all of our culture”.68 A year prior similar lines were published in the Nationalist daily Lietuvis:

It is not sandy lands of the Vilnius Region, not the greed for new territories, and not the wealth that attract us there, like the Poles. We Lithuanians, on the other side of the cordon, are lured by absolutely different things. It is the soul of our ancestors, the living soul, as though Prometheus, nailed to the hills and castles of the Vilnius Region that draws us to Vil- nius [...] All that creates the only meaning of life of our nation, and the basis for every honest son of the nation. [...] Without Vilnius, as though without a heart, we should perish vacantly as a nation and as a state.69

After the 17 December 1926 coup the image of the Lithuanian territory with Vilnius in it became an almost obligatory way of seeing the world for society at large. In the 1930s the idea became rooted in the Lithuanian discourse that the vision of a national tradition was necessary for national identity and statehood. The political regime wanted to see itself as a successor of the tradition of the historical statehood of the country, and the inter-war Lithuanian intellectuals were looking for sources for a tradition of national culture. Therefore the political regime was fascinated with the tradition of statehood of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the intellectuals thought that authentic sources of Lithuanian culture were hidden in the distant past of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania when the state was undoubtedly Lithuanian until the 1569 Union of Lublin with Po- land, and Vilnius was the capital of the Lithuanian state. Vilnius was an essential element in the discourse of Lithuanian Nationalism both in constructing the tradition of historical statehood and in asserting a continuous and full-pledged vision of Lithuanian culture. This is clearly reﬂ ected in the work Lithu- ania Propria [Proper Lithuania] written by the last President of independent Lithua-

66 VYGANDAS [JUOZAS PURICKIS]: Kas būtų jeigu Lietuva Vilniaus nustotų ant visados? [What Would Happen if Lithuania Were Deprived of Vilnius Forever?], in: Lietuva from 23.05.1925. 67 VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 12, p. 180. 68 Ibidem. 69 T. ŠULCAS: Neužmirškime Vilniaus [Let Us Not Forget Vilnius] in: Lietuvis from 13.02.1925.

107 nia, Smetona , during the Second World War in emigration, which presents the vision of a Lithuanian national idea in space and time. “Vilnius, situated in the middle of ethnographic Lithuania, has always been like the heart that maintained the life of the Lithuanian nation. He who had it governed the whole of the country”70 – that was not only Smetona’s historical reminescence. A picture of the city of Vilnius which was depicted against the backdrop of his history of Lithuania was supposed to make the reader draw a natural conclusion that Vilnius was the one and only true capital of Lithuania.71 Vilnius became the heart of an image of Lithuania that was portrayed by Smetona in Lithuania Propria. By means of the city’s history, he sought to underline the tradition of Lithuania’s statehood in the past and make a bridge between the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the present-day. It was like Smetona attempted to emphasise even more the idea expressed by historian Zenonas Ivinskis at the end of the 1930s: “One can hardly fi nd any other city, which would be so closely grown together with the history of the entire country”.72 The narrative of the history of Vilnius presented in Lithuania Propria is like an intertlacing of the history of Lithuanian statehood and national rebirth – thus turning the city into a symbol both of historical statehood and the statehood of a reborn nation. In Lithuania Propria, Smetona simply gathered the images of Vilnius that were found in the discourse of inter-war Lithuanian Nationalism and turned them into an integrated whole. Vilnius was highly valued in the discourse of Lithuanian Nationalism because it was thought that it was possible to read the history of the Lithuanian nation there – “from the beginning of the formation of its statehood to the painful slavery that was still reigning” due to the material cultural heritage there.73 In stating that Vilnius had always been the centre of national culture, an ideologist of nationalist culture Vy- tautas Alantas rhetorically asked: “Is it possible to know Lithuanian architecture without Vilnius?” and answered himself: “It is impossible because it was nowhere else but in Vilnius that it was born and began to fl ourish. All the great epochs of Western Europe are refl ected in the monuments of Vilnius. And not only are they refl ected [there] but in one or another case they acquired their fi nished forms here” therefore having lost the capital, the natural basis for developing a national architecure was lost. The same can be said about other branches of art and science.74 The exceptional value of Vilnius was underlined when speaking about the sources and the tradition of Lithuanian national music, art, architecture, literature and education.75

70 SMETONA, p. 199. 71 Ibidem, p. 203. 72 ZENONAS IVINSKIS: Vilnius Lietuvos praeityje [Vilnius in Lithuania’s Past], in: Trimitas 42 (1939), p. 1018. 73 Pamatykime, pp. 63-64. 74 ALANTAS, pp. 148-151. 75 The contents of the public lecture delivered by painter A. Rūkštelė in Kaunas in 1935 can serve as an example: S. GREGOTA: Lietuvių tautinis menas Vilniuje [Lithuanian National Art in Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 11 (1935), pp. 164-165.

108 In its turn, the material cultural heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Vilnius Region was interpreted as clear evidence of its Lithuanian character.76 Vilnius was the centre of this imagined Lithuania, therefore the desire to see it as Lithuanian was stronger than the reality that encouraged one to doubt the exclusive Lithuanian character of this city, and encouraged the creation of original interpretations that sought to bridge the gap between this vision and reality. Persuasive proposals were heard that despite the cultural traces left by the Russians, Poles or Germans in the city, Vilnius “nonetheless remained in large part a Lithuanian city, it was only necessary to blow off the dust of foreigners and we shall see the old city of Gediminas – the capital of Lithuania again”.77 A belief in the exceptional role of Vilnius in Lithuania became established in the discourse of Lithuanian Nationalism.78 This belief in the exceptionality of Vilnius did not only explain the anxiety that plagued the consciousness of people: “Without Vilnius we do not have our state, or national and political independence but we have no economic independence either”79 but also their strong belief in the unavoidable recovery of Vilnius when the following words were uttered when rational arguments were lacking: “The return of the Vilnius Region to an independent life that is linked with the rest of Lithuania is an unavoidable historical necessity. And one would have to put in very much effort and make a host of mistakes in wanting to avoid this necessity”.80 It was the ideologists of Lithuanian Nationalism alone who carried a pedantically ordered puzzle of this Lithuanian territory with Vilnius as its centre inside themselves, knowing the exact place of every detail that was attributed to the Lithuanian self.81 Meanwhile Lithuanian society was offered a generalised image of Lithuania painted in broad brushstrokes, an image with Vilnius in its centre. The myth of the liberation of Vilnius that was offered to society helped society to absorb the image of Lithuania’s political reality in which a lonely Lithuania, seeking to get back Vilnius that had been cunningly seized by Poland, fought for its right to exist. The dramatic portrayal of this ﬁ ght proffered the thought that it was only the nation’s solidarity and determination that could turn this aim (to get Vilnius back and in this way return Lithuania back to its former greatness) into a successful campaign, which were things that were inseparable from loyalty to the political regime, which had taken to liberating Vilnius. The myth of Vilnius’s liberation – a sacralised and ritualised narrative saturated with the stories of the glorious Lithuanian past of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and bright future for Lithuania upon getting Vilnius back, was marked by its ability to mobilise Lithuanian society, and helped this consolidated community to experience a feeling of

76 Vilnius, p. 69. 77 NARBUTAS, Vadovas, p. 5. 78 Vaižgantas ir Vilnius [Vaižgantas and Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 13 (1933), p. 186; ADOLFAS ŠAPOKA: Vilnius – politinis Lietuvos centras [Vilnius is Lithuania’s Political Centre], in: Naujoji Romuva 42-43 (1939), p. 745. 79 Visi už Vilnių kovosim, – Vilnių atvaduosim! [All of Us Shall Fight for Vilnius – We Shall Get Vilnius Back!], in: Mūsų Vilnius 2 (1929), p. 99. 80 NORVAIŠA, p. 178. 81 The book by V. Alantas can serve as an example: ALANTAS.

109 collective identity. The myth of Vilnius’s liberation became a myth that helped realise a national identity. The miraculous exceptionality of Vilnius itself served this purpose – it was in this city that one could fi nd all the symbols of Lithuanian identity regarded as the most important symbols (Gediminas Castle, Vytautas’ grave, the Gate of Dawn). This in turn strengthened the attitude towards losing Vilnius as a deadly threat posed to Lith- uanian identity: “When torn from its stem Vilnius, the Lithuanian nation stops being what it once was. The Lithuanian nation will not exist then in the true sense of the word. [...] The Lithuanian nation will not be what it was. It will be a splinter of the nation”.82 The issue of Vilnius’s liberation became an issue regarding the nation’s fate, enabling the people to ignore the political reality and to withdraw into this created image of Lith- uania that was attractive in its simplicity and bright vision of Lithuania’s future. The liberation of Vilnius was born already after coming to terms with the fact of its loss – a mythical reality that had its own logic. According to Vladimir Tismaneanu , it was precisely due to the intangibility of its fundamental essence, as well as some aspects that were at odds with rationality, that the political myth seemed like a consistent system of beliefs.83 The myth of Vilnius became an integral part of Lithuanian Nationalism.84 The role that the political regime played in blocking the way to growing doubts about the signifi cance of the Vilnius liberation campaign and criticism concerning the Vilnius liberation myth should not be forgotten. In the summer of 1930, a letter signed with the pseudonym Senas Varšuvietis [An Old Resident of Warsaw] appeared in the opposition daily Lietuvos žinios [Lithuania’s News] of the Peasant Populists in which the author tried to convince the readers that Lithuania’s main enemy was not Poland, but the rising threat posed by Germany, in the face of which Lithuania and Poland should unite.85 It did not take long to receive a response from the offi cial authorities – the offi cial organ Lietuvos aidas retorted that in this way, through the opposition press, Poland had tried to put Lithuanians under a spell with the threat posed by the Russians and Germans so they would forget Vilnius and stated that the greatest enemy of Lithua- nia and the Lithuanians was he “who kept the capital occupied”.86 The opposition paper Rytas [Morning] of the Christian Democrats, expressing its solidarity with the Lietuvos aidas and called this letter a provocation from Warsaw.87 The government’s vigilance was testifi ed to by the latter’s reaction to the ideas expressed during the discussions about the Vilnius issue and the Baltic Union organised at the Political Club in 1934. On 2 May 1934, the Political Club held a discussion on the issue of Vilnius and the Baltic Union at Vytautas Magnus University where the majority of the participants were representatives of the Lithuanian political elite that were

82 VYGANDAS [JUOZAS PURICKIS]: Vilnius ir Klaipėda [Vilnius and Klaipėda], in: Neužmiršk, pp. 136-138. 83 TISMANEANU, p. 24. 84 BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani, p. 191. 85 SENAS VARŠUVIETIS: Kuo Lietuva turėtų susirūpinti. Laiškas iš Vilniaus [What Should Lithu- ania Become Concerned About. A Letter from Vilnius], in: Lietuvos žinios from 30.06.1930. 86 Varšuviečių hipnozas [Hypnosis of the Residents of Warsaw], in: Lietuvos aidas from 02.07.1930. 87 P. R ADAUTAS: Varšuva provokuoja [Warsaw is Provoking], in: Rytas from 04.07.1930.

110 in the opposition. Prof. Vincas Čepinskis urged in the presence of the growing threat of danger from Nazi Germany to fi rst of all take care of preserving the state’s sovereignty refuse tying the issue of Vilnius to the creation of a Baltic Union in the name of independence, as well as to establish diplomatic relations with Poland without delay. Stating that he was not suggesting to renounce Vilnius and thought that the latter was necessary for Lithuania, he added the following: “But if we got back Vilnius now, we would be ruined as a state and as a nation. Therefore it is the grace of God that we do not have Vilnius yet”. Speaking about the “psychopathological situation” with respect to the issue of Vilnius that held fast in society, Čepinskis stated: “We may hate the Poles, and have no liking for them, but we must not shut our eyes to the situation so that by being concerned of Vilnius we would not lose our independence either”.88 In its editorial, the offi cial Lietuvos aidas immediately called these ideas a faked version of the voice of society, misleading one’s own people and strangers and falsifying public opinion. Adding the following: “All the speakers as if they agreed beforehand, repeated mentioning some sort of “issue of Vilnius”. [...] There is no issue concerning Vilnius for we Lithuanians. There is only an argument about the capital, there is only the case of Vilnius with a neighbour that is particularly predatory”.89 The fi rst reaction of the offi cial newspaper was rather reserved. However, when Čepinskis’s thoughts received approval in the press of the leftists and the Christian Democrats, and activist Leonas Bistras of the Social Democrats judged these ideas as “the correct conclusions drawn by common sense” having taken into account Lithuania’s geopolitical situation, adding that Čepinskis “only read to everybody out loud what every conscious Lithua- nian had in his heart for a long time”90 the mood of the offi cial newspaper changed – a new editorial appeared whose tone was refl ected in its headline entitled “Impermissable Tactless Acts”. This time Lietuvos aidas delivered a hard blow: soon after it saw an ideological and chronological link between the ideas about the real Lithuanian-Polish Union presented in the Polish press and the “painstaking helper of the Poles”, the Po- litical Club started to debate Lithuanian-Polish relations. The participants in the discussions were called conspirators of the Poles, and the ideas expressed were deemed as the renunciation of Vilnius. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Lietuvos aidas stated the following: “The determination of the Lithuanians with respect to Vilnius has not changed, will not change and cannot change [...] Vilnius has been the capital of Lithua- nia since olden times and the Lithuanian nation, as long as it is alive, will seek as much as it can to get back the capital. No aging professors will tear it away it and persuade us otherwise”.91 The next day after this “rebuff”, Lietuvos aidas published a letter written to the editor by the members of the Political Club in which they renounced everything

88 A. P–NIS: Pabaltijo Sąjunga ir Vilniaus problema [The Baltic Union and the Problem of Vil- nius], in: Rytas from 04.05.1934. 89 Daugiau rimtumo [More Seriousness], in: Lietuvos aidas from 07.05.1934. 90 LEONAS BISTRAS: Protas politikoje [Mind in Politcs], in: Rytas from 07.05.1934. 91 Neleistini išsišokimai [Impermissible Tactless Acts], in: Lietuvos aidas from 11.05.1934.

111 that could be interpreted as the renunciation of Vilnius or assessed as a doubt about the importance of liberating Vilnius.92 On the other hand, even without the supervision of the political regime, inter-war Lithuanian intellectuals were possessed by the belief in the necessity of Vilnius for Lithuania and this attitude remained unchanged during the entire inter-war period. The most inﬂ uential inter-war Lithuanian philosopher Stasys Šalkauskis (in his political views he was in opposition to the authoritarian regime) stated in the second half of the 1930s that none of the Lithuanians doubted that ripping Vilnius off Lithuania’s body was like a wound, which turned the Lithuanian state into an incomplete project of the nation state without wider geopolitical perspectives and historical traditions. It seemed that it could not be otherwise because the state had lost its capital, which symbolised the cultural, historical and spiritual traditions of the country. Therefore coming to terms with the loss of Vilnius would mean coming to terms with the loss of one’s own identity and inevitably would lead to the ruin of the state, and the Lithuanian nation had to regard getting the Vilnius Region back as an “issue concerning its fate”.93 This deep and dramatic rooting of the Vilnius issue in the discourse of Lithuanian Nationalism created the preconditions for the Vilnius Liberation Movement to appear.

The Vilnius Liberation Movement

There was no lack of public initiatives in Lithuania, through which the idea that Vilnius was the only true capital of Lithuania was manifested in various ways. On 1 May 1924, a public festival of the symbolic planting of what was known as the “Vilnius Tree” was organised on the initiative of the Association to Beautify Lithuania. Not only the political elite and the Speaker of the Seimas and acting President Justinas Staugaitis in the lead, but also broad segments of society represented by different public organisations and school children went in droves to the festival of planting the “Vilnius Tree” held in Kaunas.94 By launching tree planting campaigns all over Lithuania, the widely-marked festival of planting the “Vilnius Tree” turned, as was planned by its organisers, into a public manifestation declaring that “Vilnius was and will be the capital of Lithuania”.95 Hence, the news that appeared in Lithuanian dailies on 13 January 1925 that “a group of public activists” who decided to found the VLU was working on the Statute of

92 V. G USTAINIS, M. KAVOLIS: Dėl diskusijų Vytauto D. Universitete [Regarding Discussions at Vytautas Magnus University], in: Lietuvos aidas from 12.05.1934. 93 S TASYS ŠALKAUSKIS: Vilniaus atvadavimas ir tautinio mūsų gyvenimo problemos [Libera- tion of Vilnius and Problems of Our National Life], in: Mūsų Vilnius 1-2 (1937), pp. 6-7; 3 (1937), pp. 41-42. 94 ČIABUVIS: Vilniaus diena [The Day of Vilnius], in: Rytas from 01.05.1924; Vilniaus medžio sodinimo iškilmės [The Vilnius Tree Planting Celebrations], in: Rytas from 03.05.1924; Li- etuvos “Vilniaus Medžio” sodinimo šventė [Lithuanian Festival of Planting “Vilnius Tree”], in: Lietuva from 02.05.1924. 95 Vilniaus medis; Z. RAŠONIS: “Vilniaus Medžio” sodinimo šventė [Festival of Planting the “Vilnius Tree”], in: Šiaulių naujienos from 09.05.1924; Gegužės 1 d. Panevėžy [The First of May in Panevėžys], in: Panevėžio balsas from 08.05.1924.

112 Vilnius oak planting ceremony in Šiauliai: Šiauliai Mayor Kazimieras Venclauskas (in the center, holding the tree), Jonas Šliūpas (on the right with a shovel) and Juozapas Miliauskas-Miglovara (on the left with a shovel). 01.05.1924. LCSA

“Vilnius Oak” planted by students of the Agricultural Academy. Dotnuva. 1925. CNM

113 this Union and soon intended to convene their founding meeting in Kaunas.96 The idea of founding this Union occurred to the Priest Fabijonas Kemėšis , who lectured at the University of Lithuania at that time. Biržiška , Andrius Rodomanskis , Stasys Šilingas , Žemaitis , Mečislovas Reinys and Smetona became his fi rst like-minded contemporaries.97 These activists with different political views were tied by two things – the academic activity at the University of Lithuania and a clear nationalistic engagement con- cering the Vilnius issue. The founding meeting of the VLU took place at the University of Lithuania on 26 April. The initiators of the founding of the union declared that they sought to unite the Lithuanian national community scattered all over the world which, as they said, would embody the “main idea of the Lithuanian nation”, which was getting back the capital city of Vilnius. The new organisation planned on carrying out the liberation of Vilnius fi rst of all by rallying members who approved of its aspirations and by comprehensively actualising the issue of Vilnius. It was decided to implement the idea of necessity of getting back Vilnius in Lithuanian society itself (“by strengthening the love for Vilnius”) and by comprehensively actualising the issue of Vilnius beyond the borders of Lithuania, fi ghting with the help of propaganda measures. Nationalistically motivated signatories of the founding of the union were obsessed with the aspiration to strengthen and unify Lithuanian society (fi rst of all, orienting themselves towards ethnic Lithuanians) for the Vilnius liberation campaign and thus block the way to political speculations on the Vilnius issue. The founders of the Union, having set themselves a goal of rallying as broad layers of society as possible, sought to isolate themselves from the political life of the country as much as possible, therefore it was proposed to admit to the Union only those persons “who had no hidden political aims”.98 The daily Lietuvos žinios of the Peasant Populists who were in opposition judged the establishment of the VLU only as a wish of the Christian Democrats to demonstrate their supposed concern about the fate of Vilnius. At that time, as has already been mentioned, the authorities were criticised for not lodging any protest when the Vatican concluded the concordat with Poland whereby the Vilnius Diocese was recognised as belonging to Poland – it seemed that the Christian Democrats weren’t even courageous enough to show their middle fi nger to the Pope in their pockets, therefore they decided by founding the VLU to demonstrate to the public the kind of concern one needed to have about the Vilnius issue. Lietuvos žinios did not believe the declarations of the founders of the Union that the VLU would be a non-party organisation and would seek to unite people of different political views in the campaign for the liberation of Vilni- us. The establishment of the VLU was deemed to be meaningless work. The founders of the Union were accused of “exploiting the name of Vilnius that was dear to every Lithuanian”.99

96 Sąjunga Vilniui vaduoti [Vilnius Liberation Union], in: Rytas from 13.01.1925; Kauno kronika [Kaunas Chronicle], in: Lietuva from 29.04.1925. 97 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, p. 20. 98 P.I.: Vilniui vaduoti sąjungos steigiamasis susirinkimas [Founding Meeting of the Vilnius Liberation Union], in: Lietuva from 29.04.1925. 99 V.K.: Triukšmas Vilniui “vaduoti” [A Clammer “to Liberate” Vilnius], in: Lietuvos žinios from 26.04.1925.

114 The accusation levelled at the VLU that the founders of the Union simply carried out the political orders of the Christian Democrats was too exaggerated. First of all, the very idea emerged in the surroundings of the nationalistically motivated Lithua- nian academic intelligentsia, and the signatories of the VLU themselves considered the establishment of the union as the mission of the representatives of the Lithuanian intelligentsia. However, one should admit that the Christian Democrats, who were in power, were interested in founding the VLU and demonstrating their support to the new organisation. The interest in the activity of the VLU by those who were in power was determined by the political state of affairs of that time. It should be mentioned that the issue of the relations with Poland, most often simply referred to as the Vilnius issue, was not only the most important issue of foreign policy, but also a signifi cant factor of domestic policy that was readily used in political clashes in Lithuania in the 1920s. In 1925, the Government came under an avalanche of accusations. It was accused by the opposition of supposedly trying to renounce the aim of getting Vilnius back, so demonstrating support of the Christian Democrats who were in power for the establishment of the VLU was equal to an offi cial declaration that the authorities went on fi ghting for getting Vilnius back. It had already been decided at the founding meeting of VLU that the VLU would commemorate the 9th of October as the “Day of Mourning For the Lithuanian Na- tion” (it was on 9 October 1920 that Lithuania lost Vilnius) until Lithuania got Vilnius back.100 The proclamation of the VLU entitled “To the Lithuanian Nation!” published in the press on 14 June 1925 encouraged the public to welcome the 9th of October “not only with seriousness but also with fi rm resolution not to relent until Vilnius was recovered”.101 The organisation of the commemoration of the Day of Mourning on the 9th of October was to become the fi rst public campaign of the VLU – the fi rst public appearance of the VLU itself, however, the Union was too weak for organisational work, therefore the main burden of organising it was taken over by the para-military and nationalistically motivated Union of Rifl emen. The government also wanted to help, who expected to receive political dividends from it. On the 9th of October, three-colour fl ags tied with black ribbons were hoisted, and at 12 o’clock the whole country stood in silence for one minute. That day there were no public events and entertainment anywhere, and in the evening public lectures were delivered on the theme of Vilnius. Later the press stated that there had never been so many public lectures in Kaunas in one day: lectures were given at the Town Hall and the State Theatre, the Offi cers’ Club of the Lithuanian Military Offi cers (Karininkų Ramovė) and the University of Lithuania. The opposition did not miss the opportunity in their lectures they delivered on the Day of Mourning to once again to put all the blame for losing Vilnius on the Christian Democrats. The government was most heavily criticised by the Nationalists. In his speech, which answered his own rhetorical question about who was to blame for the fact that Vilnius had been lost, Smetona stated the following: “Yes, the government is to blame, for losing Vilnius, but we are also to blame for tak-

100 P.I.: Vilniui vaduoti sąjungos steigiamasis susirinkimas [Founding Meeting of the Vilnius Liberation Union], in: Lietuva from 29.04.1925. 101 Į lietuvių tautą! [To the Lithuanian Nation!], in: Rytas from 14.06.1925.

115 The postcard “Let Us Liberate Vil- nius!” distributed by the Rifle- menʼs Union of Lithuania in 1925. CAM. NML ing too little interest in politics, for not reacting to our government, which constantly yielded to Poland”. Voldemaras expressed even sharper criticism of the government in his speech, and demanded that the government should resign – apparently it would be possible to get Vilnius back only after the government had cleansed itself of discredited politicians.102 The 9th October meeting continued on the 10th of October, on the day declared “Day of the Nation’s Determination”. According to the idea of the meeting’s organisers, the nation’s determination to liberate Vilnius was to be demonstrated on that day. A demonstration was organised in Town Hall Square (Rotušės Square ) in Kaunas during which, alongside public organisations and schools with their ﬂ ags, the glorious past of Lithuania was demonstrated to the public with the help of what could be called

102 AD. M–AS: Gedulos, demonstracijos, dangaus ašaros [Mourning, Demonstrations, Heaven’s Tears], in: Lietuvis from 16.10.1925.

116 “living pictures”, the kind of help that could mobilise the ethnic Lithuanian community: cavalrymen dressed in the ancient clothing of warriors, iron wolves mounted on cars, which heralded the founding Vilnius, Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas on the throne, which was a symbol of Lithuania’s statehood in the past. These pictures of this glorious past were accompanied by a “living picture” of the future they desired: armed riﬂ emen liberating Gediminas Castle in Vilnius. The demonstration went from Rotušės Square to the square in front of the War Museum. It had been planned that the demonstration would stop near the building of the government on the way, and that Prime Minister Bistras would greet it and declare the government’s determination to strive to recover Vilnius, while the demonstration would conﬁ rm that it supported the government’s aims. The government needed this support because, as has already been mentioned, in the autumn of 1925 it was subject to criticism for their negotiations with Poland in Copenhagen and Lausanne – judging it as a step taken by the Christian Democrats to renounce Lithuania’s claims to Vilnius. However, the representatives of the opposition who took part in the demonstration shouted “Down with the negotiations with the Poles!” and booed the Prime Minister.103 The Day of Mourning that was commemorated all over Lithuania on 9-10 October104 added a new commemoration day to the national calendar. The press stated in its reports about the commemoration in the countryside that the Day of Mourning events united social and political groups that did not ally themselves with one another under other circumstances, and that members of the Jewish communities also participated in the events.105 One should add that there were voices of protest that were heard during the commemoration addressed to the Government, which had conducted negotiations with the Poles – a resolution that was adopted during the commemoration in Pasvalys demanded the following: “First Vilnius and only then other affairs”.106 After both the government and the opposition parties tried to use the Vilnius issue for their political interests at the meetings held on the 9th of October, the leaders of the VLU decided to try and block the way for further political manipulation on the Vilnius issue – a suggestion was made to political party leaders and ideologists to join forces to

103 Ibidem, pp. 7-10; P.I.: Vilniui vaduoti pasiryžimo demonstracija [Demonstration of Resolu- tion to Liberate Vilnius], in: Lietuva from 12.10.1925. 104 Nuliūdęs Lietuvis: Kaip šaukėniškiai praleido Gedulo Dieną [How Residents of Šaukėnai Spent the Day of Mourning]; Pasvalio miestelio ir apylinkės visuomenės viešojo susirinkimo, įvykusio spalių mėn. 11 d., Vilniaus netekimo gedulo 5 m. sukaktuvių minėti rezoliucija [Resolution of a Public Meeting of the People of the Town of Pasvalys and Its Environs to Commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Loss of Vilnius Held on 11 October], in: Šiaulietis from 18.10.1925. 105 ŽEMAITIS: Kaip apvaikščiota Panevėžy Vilniaus gedulos diena [How the Day of Mourning was Spent in Panevėžys], in: Panevėžio balsas from 15.10.1925. 106 Pasvalio miestelio ir apylinkės visuomenės viešojo susirinkimo, įvykusio spalių mėn. 11 d., Vilniaus netekimo gedulo 5 m. sukaktuvių minėti rezoliucija [Resolution of a Public Meeting of the People of the Town of Pasvalys and Its Environs to Commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Loss of Vilnius Held on 11 October], in: Šiaulietis from 18.10.1925.

117 Medal “Let Us Liberate Vilnius”. Artist P. Rimša. 1926. NMLL conceptualise a collective position for the Lithuanian nation on the Vilnius issue.107 In essence, that meant a proposal to pledge to refuse all speculation on the issue of Vilnius in politics. This plan failed – though none of the political or societal movements dared to reject the idea of uniting for the sake of Vilnius’s liberation, they also did not show any enthusiasm for it. It is diffi cult to measure enthusiasm, however, according to how differently the VLU’s proposal was received, it can be said that the Social Democrats welcomed it with the greatest enthusiasm, whereas the Nationalists, who “were looking more broadly into” the idea of Vilnius’s liberation, were the least enthusiastic.108 For the Nationalists, who were in opposition, accepting the VLU’s proposal meant refusing to exploit the issue of Vilnius in their political struggle, which was one of the main issues which the Nationalists constantly criticised the Christian Democrats about. The Vilnius issue became such a part of the Nationalists’ rhetoric, who constantly exploited the Vilnius issue in their political struggle, that it became an inseparable part of the party’s identity. What’s more, soon after, on the 6th of December 1925, there was a festive commemoration of the Seimas of Vilnius, which was organised by the Nation- alists. With the Nationalists in the lead the Christian Democrats were bitterly criticised concerning the theme of Vilnius. The resolutions adopted at this commemorative event accused the government of “making the recovery of Vilnius more diffi cult for Lithua- nia and for bringing the threat of Polish imperialism closer to Lithuania by pursuing a careless, unsound policy”, of its inability to properly inherit the democratic principles of the Vilnius Seimas, while society, which “wanted to lead Lithuania out of a diffi cult situation and get back the Vilnius Region sooner” was urged “to elect people worth

107 Minutes No. 16 of the meeting of the Committee of the VLU of 20.10.1925, in: LCVA, f. 565, ap. 1, b. 631, l. 17. 108 Minutes No. 20 of the meeting of the Committee of the VLU of 23.11.1925, ibidem, l. 20.

118 being trusted in the nearest elections to the Seimas”.109 It seemed society obeyed this encouragment and after the elections to parliament that took place in May 1926, the Christian Democrats lost the monopoly of power. The truth be told, the Nationalists did not gain any popularity either – they received only three seats in the new Parlia- ment. Power became concentrated in the hands of a coalition of the Lithuanian Peasant Populist Union and the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party which, seeking to assure a majority for themselves in the coalition, invited representatives of national minorities elected to the Seimas to join them. On 9 October 1926, a congress of the representatives of the VLU branches was held in Kaunas. Within one year, there were 22 branches and about 600 members that appeared in the Union.110 The commemoration of the Day of Mourning that was held in Kaunas was more reserved than the year before – there was no meeting of the masses or demonstrations, though there were a great number of events – politicians and social activists delivered public lectures on the theme of Vilnius in a total of nine halls in Kaunas.111 To the opposition, it seemed that the government was commemorating the Day of Mourning in too reserved of a manner, and tried to prove that the ideals of Lith- uanian Nationalism were on the whole alien to the coalition of the left-wing political forces that were in power.112 At the same time, the nationalistically-minded opposition tried to take the initiative of commemorating the Day of Mourning in the province into their own hands – all the more so, as the organisational strength of the VLU itself was still weak. The opposition’s accusations that the left wing coalition in power did not pay suffi cient attention to the issue of Vilnius were exaggerated – on the 9th of October the issues of both the government’s offi cial paper Lietuva and the daily Lietuvos žinios of the Peasant Populists, as well as the daily Rytas of the Christian Democrats, had a mourning ribbon that ran around the edges of the front page. That day the press of the opposition parties in power urged the citizens “not to relent without Vilnius”. At the same time, it seemed the press of the Social Democrats had forgotten about the Day of Mourning – the ideals of Lithuanian Nationalism were alien to the Social Democrats indeed. The reproaches of the opposition offered to the government that the government paid insuffi cient attention to the Vilnius issue were fi rst and foremost a result of the general backdrop of criticism aimed at the government. In the autumn of 1926, the opposition spared no efforts in threatening society with the bugaboo of Poland and Russia and forcing upon it the idea about the hurt national feelings of Lithuanians and protection of national minorities at the expense of Lithuanians. The left-wing coalition was bitterly criticised for the fact that by seeking to preserve their majority in the parliament, it

109 Rezoliucijos, per aklamaciją priimtos minint Vilniaus Seimo sukaktuves [Resolutions Adopt- ed Through Acclamation in Commemorating the Anniversary of the Seimas of Vilnius], in: Lietuvis from 11.12.1925. 110 Vilniui Vaduoti Sąjungos skyrių atstovų suvažiavimas Kaune [Meeting of the Representa- tives of the Branches of the Vilnius Liberation Union in Kaunas], in: Rytas from 10.10.1926. 111 Gedulo dienos tvarka [Procedure for the Day of Mourning], in: Lietuvos žinios from 09.10.1926. 112 Spalių mėn. 9-oji diena Tauragėje [The 9th of October in Tauragė], in: Rytas from 13.10.1926.

119 took into consideration the requests of national minorities, and as a result the number of Polish schools in the country increased considerably. The Christian Democrats and the Nationalists, who were both in opposition, blamed the leftists for an increase in the number of Polish schools and treated this fact as a betrayal of national interests. The opposition argued that the number of Polish schools in Lithuania could not be increased if at the same time Lithuanian educational institutions were persecuted in the Vilnius Region. Control of the situation gradually slipped out the hands of the Left. Everything ended in the following manner: on the night of the 16 December, when the country was to commemorate the 60th birthday of President Grinius , the army carried out a coup. The military offi cers were supported by the Christian Democrats and the Nationalists, who managed to create the appearance of a lawful taking over of power. The leaders of the Nationalists took the lead in the government – Smetona became President, while Voldemaras took over the reigns of power in a coalition government of the Christian Democrats and the Nationalists. Half a year later the Nationalists and the Christian Democrats went along their own paths – starting in the summer of 1927 the Christian Democrats joined the ranks of the opposition. Smetona’s authoritarian regime became fi rmly entrenched in the country. The new political regime that was loyal to the ideals of nationalism announced that “the issue of getting Vilnius back was the issue number one for every Lithuanian patriot”, and the paper Lietuvis of the Nationalists, which had turned into the government’s offi cial newspaper, argued that the issue of getting back Vilnius “was dearer” to the new Prime Minister Voldemaras “than anyone else” [...] because he himself was a Vilniusite.113 His parents and ancestors were buried in Vilnius that had been seized by the Poles”.114 During the fi rst days of 1927, Vincas Uždavinys , who was an activist from the VLU who visited the VLU branch of Židikiai located in a distant part of Samogitia wrote the following in his report:

It was only after seeing me that the members of the board remembered that there was a VLU branch in Židikiai [...] While I was in Židikiai all the board members got going and immediately started to revive the branch. We visited the institutions of the small town of Židikiai – the school, the board of the rural district and the branch of a bank I don’t know the name of and we registered another 15 new members who were very glad to ﬁ nd that such a branch existed.115

That strange looking joy could most likely be explained in the following way – membership in the VLU helped to solve the problem of how to show one’s loyalty to the new government. This comparatively rapid and deft political afﬁ liation is somewhat surprising, though having in mind the fact that society had heard the threats of the Pol- ish bugaboo coming from the opposition for half a year already, along with accusations

113 Voldemaras was born in the village of Disna, Ignalina region, which was in the territory of Poland from October 1920. 114 Nauja linkmė [The New Direction], in: Lietuvis from 12.01.1927. 115 Report No. 2 of Vincas Uždavinys (1927), in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 64, l. 47.

120 A vignette depicting a Lithuanian soldier looking at the Castle of Gediminas adorned the journal Karys (Warrior) devoted to the soldiers of Lituania directed toward the government of their betrayal of national ideals, there had been enough time for them to affi liate themselves. Smetona and Voldemaras , who were the leaders the Nationalists, set themselves apart from other politicians of their time with their continuous attempts to make the Vilnius question a relevant issue. Though none of the politicians of the time lacked this, regardless of their ideological leanings, it was only the Nationalists who were noted for such purposefulness and consistency, fi rst and foremost Voldemaras . Thus it is not surprising that those in power that depended directly on the political regime hurried to “express their solidarity”, knowing the exceptional attention that the Nationalists paid to the Vilnius issue. However that did not mean that when the Nationalists took power, the Vilnius issue immediately became an issue for the entire Lithuanian nation. What’s more, this issue was not the most relevant in the summer of 1927 for a large majority of Lithuanian society. In the summer of 1927, when President of the Republic of Lith- uania Smetona travelled across Samogitia, the citizens who welcomed him expressed their thanks and requests, however he barely heard requests from these well-wishing Lithuanians to liberate Vilnius as soon as possible. At the same time this appeal, if we can believe the reports of the journey published in the press, was on the lips of representatives of the Jewish communities that welcomed the President almost across the board.116 This concern shown by the Jewish communities concerning the liberation of Vilnius most likely testifi ed fi rst and foremost to their desire to demonstrate their loyalty to the political regime. The passivity of Lithuanian society with respect to the idea of Vilnius’s liberation should not be surprising. Uždavinys, who travelled across Samogitia half a year before Smetona did, wrote the following after visiting Viekšniai: “People in groups and separately asked me to deliver lectures more often on the issue of Vilnius because they

116 VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 12, pp. 377, 381, 384, 389, 396, 417, 423.

121 Cartoon “Remembering the Day of Mourning for Vilnius”. Postscript: On 9 October all of Lithuania expressed mourning for captured Vilnius with one minute of complete tranquility. But nevertheless, there appeared in Lithuania many citizens who extended the “tran quility” for all of 24 hours. Spaktyva, 1927, no. 19-22 are interested in it and they know nothing about Vilnius”.117 Vilnius was a distant and exotic city for the Samogitians. Dzūkija, which Uždavinys had visited, gave him the opposite impression118: “The disctrict of the Dzūkijans is the most serious fi ghter of the Vilnius front”.119 The Dzūkijans, who lived next to the demarcation line with Poland, naturally knew Vilnius better not only because of its geographical proximity, but also due to the consequences of the confl ict with Poland that they experienced. However, on the whole, when reading the reports of the VLU experts and looking at the activity of the branch of the VLU that had been set up in the villages, one can easily become convinced that Vilnius’s liberation (as Vilnius itself) was a distant thought for a villager. However, a few years of an active campaign to liberate Vilnius had passed and in No- vember 1929 Römeris in his letter to famous Vilnius public fi gure Ludwik Abramowicz compared the “proposal of getting back Vilnius” with a dogma that “is a much fi rmer dogma than that of the virgin birth, an infallible Pope and other dogmas of the Catholic Church”, adding that the apprehensions he publicly expressed concerning the possible disastrous consequences of the implementation of this proposal for Lithuania and to the political stability of the entire region would be considered heresy, and he himself would be accused of treason.120 In writing this, Römeris understandably had in mind fi rst of all the discourse on foreign policy in Lithuania, however, society was also gradually swept up in the idea of liberating Vilnius. The popularisation of this idea and multi-faceted mobilisation of society was bearing fruit. The political myth of Vilnius’s liberation was taking root ever deeper in society.

117 Report No. 2 of Vincas Uždavinys (1927), in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 64, l. 46. 118 Dzūkija is one of ﬁ ve ethno-cultural regions of Lithuania, which is located in the south of Lithuania. 119 Report of the journeys in November 1927 by Vincas Uždavinys in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 64, l. 35. 120 SAWICKI, pp. 156-157.

122 A group of stage lovers of the Lithuanian Army 1st Infantry Regiment, after the performance of Vilniaus sūnūs” (Sons of Vilnius). Ukmergė. 16.02.1932. BRMS

Procession on a Lithuanian city street – the black Participants of the First World Congress of Lithua- obelisk in the wagon symbolizes the Suwalki treaty nians in Kaunas on 11-17 August 1935 during an of 7 October 1920 broken by Poland and the excursion to the demar cation line with Poland. seizure of Vilnius. 1920s-1930s. LCSA Demonstration showing determination to regain Vilnius. Varėna. LCSA

123 The demarcation line of Lithuania and Poland. At the barrier a border guard of Lithuania is standing. On the left side of the barrier a “Vilnius Oak” is planted, and on the right side the “The Nationʼs Leader Oak”, dedicated to the President of the Republic of Lithuania Antanas Smetona. Puoriai (Širvintai district). 1930s. LCSA

The spectacle “Proclamation to the World for the Liberation of Vilnius” staged by the Philadelphia St. Ca- simir parish choir on the 15th anniversary of Lithuanian Independence Day, the 16th of February. Pennsyl- vania, USA. 16.02.1933. LCSA

124 “Through the VLU closer to Vilnius!” Engraving “We will not be at peace without Vilnius!” Mūsų of A. Juškēvičius. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1932, no. 34 1935, no. 20

The fact that the political and cultural elite truly sought to make use of the campaign to liberate Vilnius as an idea to rally the Lithuanian community together is conﬁ rmed by the words of Lithuanian writer Vaižgantas who, upon hearing an opinion expressed during a VLU congress held in October 1929 that “the idea of getting back Vilnius is simply a noble ideal but a non-reality” refuted it, saying: “if this were so, we must cherish that ideal because it trains us, it rouses us to nobler work, it does not allow us to stagnate. If there was no issue concerning Vilnius, we would have to create it. We must have some kind of noble goal, which every true Lithuanian would not regret giving his life for.”121 In short: if there was no Vilnius issue, Lithuanian political leaders would have to invent another idea that would bring Lithuanian society together. Alongside the idea of Vilnius’s liberation as an idea bringing together Lithuanian society, the political elite did not forget more pragmatic aims, which were aptly depicted in Juozas Grušas’s novel “The Careerists” that was published in 1935. In the book, the Machiavellian party ofﬁ cial Murza states that

Vilnius is, perhaps the greatest and most holy desire of the whole Lithuanian nation at this time. And it is possible to win much with such great ideas. It is necessary, jut speaking among

121 V. V. S-gos skyrių atstovų IV suvažiavimas [The 4th Meeting of the Representatives of the Branches of the Union], in: Mūsų Vilnius 10 (1929), p. 376.

125 Map of Lithuania, with VLU sections marked. In November 1935 with the publication of this map, it was mentioned that the 51 new VLU sections founded in that year remained not marked on the map. Mūsų Vil- nius [Our Vilnius], 1935, no. 21

ourselves, to monopolise them. I would say, one has even to speculate a little with these ideas ... It is necessary to persuade the nation that it is only us that is ﬁ ghting for Vilnius, while other parties lost Vilnius, sold it …122

The political regime followed these principles, having found a subtle mechanism of monopolising on the myth of the liberation of Vilnius. The government was becoming the patron of the VLU, which fostered this myth and encouraged the propagation of the idea of liberating Vilnius in every way possible. Interestingly enough, already in 1927, barely a year after their entrenchment in power, the authoritarian regime was reproached by the opposition because it had appropriated the managing the Vilnius liberation campaign and used it to strengthen the authority of their regime.123 In 1927,

122 GRUŠAS, pp. 29-30. 123 Ne valdžios atsakomybės, o tautos gyvybės klausimas [The Issue of Life of the Nation Rath- er Than That of the Government’s Responsibility], in: Lietuvos žinios from 11.10.1927.

126 fi rst of all owing to the government’s support, the 9th of October was commemorated rather widely. The government’s patronage of the VLU was one of the infl uential factors that was instrumental in the constant growth of the organisation. In 1925, the VLU had 14 branches, 29 branches in 1926, 77 in 1927, 160 branches in 1928, and a total of 612 in 1937. The number of the members of the union went from 1,000 in 1926 to 27,000 in 1937.124 The trend is obvious – there was steady growth in the organisation, and structural development over all of Lithuania. Apart from the branches operating on a territorial principle, departamental branches were established in state institutions (for example in the Ministry of Agriculture) or in departments that were subordinate to the government. Postal and railway employees had the largest departamental sections. At the beginning of 1933, there were 358 branches of the VLU in Lithuania, including 301 territorial branches and 57 departamental branches, whereas in Kaunas 13 out of the 17 VLU branches were departamental branches. These 13 departamental branches were the largest – the VLU branch at the Ministry of Agriculture had 540 members at the end of 1937.125 This organisation, which was supported by the government, did not lack members. The VLU essentially became a pro-government public organisation. Its managing bodies (the Central Executive Committee) was comprised of high-ranking civil servants, and the direct infl uence of the Nationalists increased after Biržiška resigned from his post as chairman of the union and conceded the spot to a Nationalist, Antanas Juška .126 VLU membership was regarded as proof of political loyalty and devotion to the ideals of nationality that the political regime required. It is likely that a large number of its members deemed it to be just that, regarding the payment of a membership fee as their only obligation to the union - that was the extent of the activity of the 302 member branch of the Central Institution of the Railway Board of the VLU in 1938.127 It should be added that compared with other pro-governmnent public organisations, the political engagement of the VLU with respect to the government was moderate, and the political regime did not beleuguer it with irksome advice and guidance, seeking to create an image of the VLU as an organisation that was free from the direct infl uence of the Nationalists and open to the broadest layers of society. Having gathered together more than 20,000 members in the 1930s, the VLU did not complain about the lack of attention from the government, without which the union’s activity would have been much more modest – there would not have been so many branches of the union or mass commemorations of the 9th of October. When expanding its ranks the Vilnius Libera- tion Union followed a principle that one of the activists of this union characterised as follows in 1930:

We have to prove that there is room for the Nationalist, and the Populist, the Christian Dem- ocrat and for the Social Democrat, and on the whole for all Lithuanians and non-Lithuanians,

124 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, pp. 27, 46. 125 Ibidem, pp. 33-34. 126 Ibidem, pp. 70-74. 127 Minutes of the general meeting of the VLU members of the Staff Department of the Central Ofﬁ ce of the Board of Railway Workers of 21.10.1938, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 172, l. 92.

127 Members of the VLU Riflemen’s branch of the Šiauliai Road district marching to the celebration of the christening of the flag of their own section. Šiauliai. [About 1930]. LCSA

VLU general congress. Kaunas. 1933. LCSA

128 anyone who agrees that Vilnius should be the capital of Lithuania. [...] Though our direct aim is the liberation of Vilnius, it is clear that Vilnius can be liberated only by a united, strong, wealthy and educated Lithuania.128

This attitude was to help gather the broadest layers of the population into the ranks of the union. And in many ways it was a success – for example no other Lithuanian organisation had so many Jewish members. There were independent branches of the VLU that were made up of only Jewish members, which were located in Šeduva, Mažeikiai, Panevėžys, and Biržai. However, the total number of Jewish VLU members was small. A small branch of Raižiai129 operated on the basis of nationality, gathering local Tartars together.130 Active VLU members wanted a small VLU branch for those who were Polish131 for propaganda purposes, however, this remained only a dream. This should not be surprising, having in mind the powerful anti-Polish rhetoric used in the VLU.132 The VLU worked hard in popularising the idea of liberating Vilnius, and sought to draw as broad layers of society as possible into its activity. Different instruments of propaganda and mobilising practices were tested. For example, within one year (from 1 October 1932 to 1 October 1933) VLU activists delivered 245 reports on the state radio station on the theme of Vilnius.133 The fi gures are really impressive, however at that time there were not many radios in Lithuania. The activity of the Vilnius Iron Wolf Fund (VIWF), an autonomous VLU branch set up in 1932, was effective in mobilising society for the Vilnius liberation campaign. The aim of the VIWF was to collect donations for the Vilnius liberation campaign, the goal of which was “with the help of cents to unite, and cement all Lithuanians together”.134 The VIWF committees were set up in the most remote places of Lithuania, which were made not only of the representatives of the VLU but also of different public organisations, as well as the representatives of the infl uential elite, which expanded the ranks of the participants in the Vilnius liberation campaign. In this way all the most infl uential public organisations operating all over Lithuania were drawn in that campaign through the committees of the VIWF – from paramilitary rifl emen all the way down to scouts. Hence, in this way the whole society was essentially included in the Vilnius liberation campaign. One should add that different public organisations of a nationalistic nature took an active part in the propaganda campaign for the liberation of Vilnius in their own way. For example, in 1940, the governing body of the Rifl emen Union stated that it had issued several dozen publications

128 VYGANDAS [JUOZAS PURICKIS]: Šis tas apie mūsų darbus ir taktiką [This and That About our Work and Tactics], in: Mūsų Vilnius 6 (1930), p. 119. 129 Raižiai is a village in Alytus region where a Tartar community lived. 130 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, p. 48. 131 VINCAS UŽDAVINYS: Draft of the VLU activities for 1929-1930, in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 271. 132 For more about anti-Polish rhetoric of the VLU see: BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani. 133 VINCAS UŽDAVINYS: Chronicles, in: LMAVB RS, f. 183, b. 28, l. 160-163. 134 Vilniaus geležinis fondas, p. 20.

129 Vilnius passport “Do you have a Vilnius passport?” – A call to become a symbolic citizen of Vilnius. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1933, no. 23-24

Distribution of Vilnius passports in Šiauliai. 1932. LCSA

130 (postcards, posters, and booklets) in different languages (“Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, and Belarusian”) whose print run fl uctuated from a few to a few hundred thousand.135 Symbolic Vilnius passports, which served the purpose of collecting donations were essentially VIWF donation booklets. The fi rst batch of Vilnius passports – half a million – was printed in the autumn of 1932. The VLU thought of distributing these Vilnius passports as a means of collecting donations for its activity, however on the eve of distributing the passports it was understood that the propaganda side of the passports was much more important that the hope of collecting funds – Biržiška, who was the head of the VLU, noted that: “The wider dissemination and implanting of the idea of Vilnius and concern about the matter of Vilnius is weightier than all the money that is received”.136 This plan to collect donations turned into a kind of symbolic campaign for turning residents of Lithuania into citizens of Vilnius. The VLU encouraged the increase of the number of citizens of Vilnius by means of these Vilnius passports, even if it was only symbolically increased, and to even use them as a kind of ritual for commemorating one’s family and close friends – one could even acquire a Vilnius passport for deceased members of the family or friends who were supposedly were wronged by fate, which prevented them from taking part in “the noble work for Vilnius”.137 There are no data available about the number of Vilnius passports that were distributed. The objective of the VLU’s programme to turn all citizens of Lithuania into symbolic citizens of Vilnius was not implemented; however, the half a million passports that was most likely distributed is impressive. The President of the Republic of Lithuania Smetona who was issued a Vilnius passport marked with a Number 1 with great fanfare was at the top of an impressive list of “Vilnius citizens”.138 In some places VLU activists achieved spectacular results. For example, in the small rural district of Stačiūnai 77.6 per cent of the residents who had never seen Vilnius became symbolic citizens of the city. A great number of Vilnius passports were distributed among school children: in 1936, 80 per cent of the pupils of primary schools in the Alytus District had Vilnius passports.139 It is diffi cult to assess the true effectiveness of this campaign, which was supposed to help understand Vilnius as a real part of a Lithuanian world. One thing is obvious – a majority of young Lithuanian citizens became symbolic citizens of the capital, and the owners of the passport testify to the fact that prior to being issued real Lithuanian passports, they fi rstly had become citizens of Vilnius. The distribution of Vilnius passports was an effi cient campaign in the propaganda campaign, which the VLU considered to be its major task. However the press was the main instrument in propaganda activity, which planted the idea in Lithuanian society that Vilnius was the only capital of Lithuania and an inseparable part of a Lithuanian

135 Ko visomis galiomis siekiam – visuomet įvyks [What is Sought For by All Means is Always Surely to Happen], in: Trimitas 10 (1940), p. 234. 136 Vilniaus pasas, jo prasmė, jo keistybės [Vilnius Passport, its Meaning, its Oddities], in: Mūsų Vilnius 24-25 (1932), p. 491. 137 Ibidem. 138 Vilniaus geležinis fondas, p. 13. 139 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, pp. 94-98.

131 “Our ancestors built Vilnius, they left Vilnius to us The Iron Wolf is awakening the founder of Vilnius with sweat and blood poured over it, we were in Gediminas. Engraving of A. Juškevičius. Mūsų Vilnius and will be there forever.” Engraving of Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1935, no. 18 A. Juškevičius. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1935, no. 17

“Waiting for the liberation of Vilnius. Engraving “In Vilnius our antiquity lies, there our future is of A. Juškevičius”. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], waiting for us”. Engraving by A. Juškevičius. 1935, no. 19. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1935, no. 23-24.

132 “The founder of Vilnius Gediminas is on guard “First iron will melt into wax, and water will turn duty on the capital, Vytautas the Great expanded into a cliff, before we will call back our spoken Lithuania from sea to sea, and Jonas Basana- word” – with these words of Lithuanian Grand vičius resurrected the new Lithuania.” What Duke Gediminas, it was emphasized that Lithuania Lithuanian, respecting those men, can renounce will not renounce Vilnius. Engraving by Vilnius? Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1935, V. Kosciuška. Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], 1931, no. 22 no. 28

“geo-body”.140 The press put out by the VLU was ﬁ rst and foremost the magazine Mūsų Vilnius (Our Vilnius), which had a truly impressive print run (72,000 copies in 1937) and became one of their main instruments through which the image of a Lithua- nian Vilnius was planted in society. Alongside political publicist writing, stories about the life of Lithuanians in Vilnius and poetry on the theme of Vilnius, the magazine published reportages about life in Vilnius which underlined that the capital that had been separated from Lithuania was experiencing economic and cultural stagnation as a city.141 On the whole, the reports of the impressions of visitors to Vilnius that appeared in Lithuania unanimously underlined the poverty and decline of Vilnius. This was all

140 Circular of the VLU Committee for the distribution of Mūsų Vilnius addressed to the branches of VLU, 25.01.1933, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 471/2, l. 102. 141 J.M. MULIERIS: Vilnius – skurdo ir vargo miestas Vilnius is the City of Poverty and Misery], in: Mūsų Vilnius 5 (1931), p. 103; A. D. POSVOLECKAS: Vilnius, kaip jis atrodo Nepriklauso- mos Lietuvos žydų “Javnės” mokslo ir švietimo draugijos dalyviui [Vilnius as Seen Through the Eyes of a Participant in the Jewish Association of Science and Education Yavne of In- dependent Lithuania], in: Mūsų Vilnius 34 (1931), p. 795; M. B–KA [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA]: Vilniuje apsilankius [Having Visited Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 2 (1934), p. 32.

133 presented as a logical consequence of the fact that the capital of Lithuania was under Polish rule.142 The VLU declared a goal for each citizen of Lithuania to know “very well and in ﬁ ne detail” what the Polish-occupied Vilnius Region with the capital of Vilnius “beginning with ancient historical times and ending with the present-day, meant to him”.143 The image of a Lithuanian Vilnius that was being planted in Lithuanian society was multi-layered. The image of a historical Lithuanian Vilnius or Vilnius as an old Lithuanian city became the basis for a multi-layered image in which the history of the city as well as its material and spiritual heritage became proof of its Lithuanian character. There was an idea that was being instilled, which was that since its very founding Vilnius “was the centre of education, industry, trade, and culture, that Vilnius was the stronghold of Lithuanian strongholds, that it was the centre of our ancestors’ holy temple, that Vilnius was all that is dear to every Lithuanian. And Vilnius was to Lithuania like a heart was to a body, until it was cunningly seized by the blood-sucking enemy, the Pole”.144 The statement that the “territory of Vilnius was inhabited by Lithuanians since olden times” was based on archaeological data, history, and the toponymics of Vilnius. It was argued that the exterior Polishness of Vilnius was a result of certain processes, and that the Poles in the Vilnius Region actually were Lithuanians who had become Polonised and who had adopted Polish”.145 The terms “Polonised” or “Lithuanians speaking Polish” were universally used in Lithuania seeking to underline that actually there were no ethnic Poles in the territory of “real Lithuania” and that “Polonisation” was a disease that could be cured.146 With the historical image that Vilnius was depicted by, they sought to show the city not only as a historically formed political centre of Lithuania, but also as a cultural centre that for Lithuania was just as important.147 The idea was being instilled that “from times immemorial Vilnius turned into the greatest religious sanctity to the Lithuanian people”, beginning with the pagan sanctuaries of Lithuania and ending with sacral Christian places. “The greatest holy things for the Catholics of Lithuania have been concentrated in Vilnius: the ‘miracle-working’ picture of the Gates of Dawn, relics of St. Casimir, Duke of Lithuania, Vilnius Calvary and other places sacred for Catho- lics”.148 The new generation was regarded as an important addressee for the VLU propaganda campaign. The members of the VLU contemplated as follows: “What would happen to our Vilnius if the generation growing up were not allowed to understand and to know what Vilnius was to Lithuania, what it is now, etc. Of course, it’s clear that in

142 NARBUTAS, Anapus, could serve as an example. 143 GAIŽUTIS, pp. 6-7. 144 Minutes of the founding meeting of VLU Gudiškiai branch of 05.06.1932, in: LCVA, f. 565, ap. 2, b. 251, l. 208. 145 ŽEMAITIS, p. 29. 146 BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani, pp. 212-222. 147 GAIŽUTIS, p. 11. 148 ŽEMAITIS, p. 17.

134 The cover of the manuscript news bulletin Vilniaus diena [Vilnius Day] issued by students of the ʻAušraʼ [Dawn] High School in Kaunas commemorating Vilnius Day (9 October). 1926. NMLL

The cover of the manuscript newsbulletin Tautybės banga [Nationality Wave] of the Nationalist students of the Joniškis High School. 1927. NMLL

135 The cover of the manuscript newsbulletin Kelias į The cover of the manuscript newsbulletin Jaunys- Vilnių [The Road to Vilnius] published by the tės žygiai [Youth marches] published by the Na- Riflemen’s squad students of the Aukštadvaris tionalist students of the Žiburys High School in High School. 1925. NMLL Vilkaviškis commemorating Vilnius Day (October 9). 1928. NMLL

The cover of the manuscript newsbulletin Geležinis vilkas [Iron Wolf] published by the Vilnius Libera- tion Union group of students of the Leipalingis High School. 1927. NMLL

136 Students built a Gediminas Tower from snow. 1930s. BRMS

The Lithuanian school in Buenos Aires. On the blackboard the words: “We will not be at peace without Vilnius”. Argentina. 1934. LCSA

137 Students of the high school of Medingėnai (Telšiai district) during military exercises in the Gedikėnai village imitated the liberation of Vilnius. The built tower of the Gediminas Castle symbolized the being liberated Vilnius. 22.04.1932. LCSA

The drawing of the artist V. Kosciuška on the cover of the journal Skautų aidas [Echo of Scouts] issued by the scouts of Lithuania devoted to the commemoration of 9 October testified to the determination of the scouts to liberate Vilnius. Skautų aidas, 1937, no. 16

138 Model of Gediminas Tower in the center of Šiauliai, The tower of the Gediminas Castle made from soil before St. Peter and Paulʼs church (now the Šiauliai with the Iron Wolf at its top. Viekšniai. 1937. LCSA Cathedral). 1930s. CPK the long run it would be like Vilnius covered with the sand in the memory of youth”.149 In 1927, the Ministry of Education allowed pupils to say the Vilnius prayer at schools in Lithuanian (in 1926, the Lithuanian Catholic Church approved the prayer to the Holy Virgin Mary of the Gate of Dawn). Starting in 1929, weekly lessons were introduced in schools on the liberation of Vilnius and national consolidation, as well as lectures and festive commemoration events on the theme of Vilnius, the adaptation of children’s games which used the theme of Vilnius. In some schools even the regular daily greeting used by pupils to greet their teachers was replaced with the phrase “Captive Vilnius” with the teacher replying “We shall liberate it”. In this way, with the importance of Vil- nius as a Lithuanian city was being planted in the cosciousness of this new generation on a regular basis. On top of this, there were also the commemoration of the Day of Vil- nius and the 9th of October held beyond the walls of school, a weekly “Vilnius’ Hour” broadcast on the radio, along with the press and symbolic perpetuations of the name of Vilnius.150 Suggestions were made to teachers to instill the thought of the liberation of Vilnius in this new generation during all of their lessons, not just during lessons on history and geography but also during lessons in music and religion (when mentioning the Gate of Dawn and other temples of worship of Vilnius), drawing (giving pupils

149 Minutes of the meeting of the representatives of the VLU branch of the Alytus District of 15.12.1935, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 99/2, l. 198. 150 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, pp. 112-154.

139 Model of Gediminas Tower in Radviliškis. 1934. CPK

Model of Gediminas Tower. 1930s. CPK

140 Model of Gediminas tower in Linkuva town square. 1930s. CPK assignments like “drawing Gediminas , the founder of Vilnius; the Iron Wolf howling on Castle Hill; the pagan high priest Lizdeika interpreting Gediminas’s dream; a pano- rama of ancient Vilnius, the present-day appearance of Castle Hill, Vilnius Cathedral, images of the environs, the Pole who stole our capital”), during lessons in crafts, the boys were told to “make a castle hill out of clay, or a castle from wood that has a Lith- uanian ﬂ ag, make Vilnius Cathedral from clay” and when spring came to make a hill in the schoolyard and to build a house of boards that resembled Gediminas Tower.151 All of these things helped to instill an image of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, in the consciousness of a new generation. While pupils drew the tower of Gediminas Castle or made one from clay, adults built symbolic Gediminas Hill from earth in the public spaces of small towns and con- structed models of Gediminas Castle. In 1929 before commemorating the 9th October, the Jonava Railway branch of the VLU built a model of the Gediminas Tower at the Jonava Railway Station on which there were pictures of a white Vytis and Grand Duke Gediminas. The following inscription was put alongside them: “Lithuanian, wake from your slumber, liberate a captive Vilnius!” The state ﬂ ag was raised above the tower, and on the morning of the 9th October 1929 a trumpeter in this castle tower invited resi-

151 A. RINKŪNAS: Mokytojai ir Vilniaus vadavimas [Teachers and Vilnius Liberation], in: Mūsų Vilnius 4 (1929), pp. 170-171.

141 President of the Republic of Lithuania Antanas Smetona on the first day of the New Year makes a speech over State radio. Behind his back the tower of Gediminas Castle painted on the wall of the radiophone. 01.01.1932. LCSA dents of the district to commemorate the Day of Vilnius.152 These kinds of Gediminas Castle towers were built in Pakruojis, Kybartai and other towns and villages around Lithuania. In 1932 painter and public ﬁ gure Vytautas Bičiūnas wrote: “In our times for all Lithuanians who love their land, all who long for Vilnius captured by the Poles, the hill of this city with its tower has turned into a symbol of the most noble of notions”.153 The symbol of Gediminas Castle was truly very popular. At that time one could ﬁ nd in various places – Gediminas Castle adorned the hall of the State Radiophone, which broadcast radio stations. A symbolic image of the city of Vilnius, with the help of a host of signs designat- ing monuments, appeared in the public spaces of the country. These images of Vilnius (such as Gediminas Castle or in other shapes) which were symbols that bore witness to one’s national pride soon found their place in the public spaces of small towns and parishes. Lithuanian writer and diplomat Jurgis Savickis wrote about these symbolic monuments in the following way:

The Lithuanian farmer’s ideal of a monument, encouraged by different event committees, is a tower. Gediminas Hill with the tower is several meters high. Deﬁ nitely built in a busier spot of a market square. Sometimes near the well of a small town. Or a cooperative [...] that monument building of ours has everything. And a watch tower. And windows. A pole for

152 1929-X-9 d. [9 October 1929], in: Mūsų Vilnius 10 (1929), pp. 387-388. 153 VYTAUTAS BIČIŪNAS: Gedimino pilis [Gediminas Castle], in: Mūsų Vilnius 10 (1932), p. 219.

142 The co-operative “Vilnius” in Truskava, Kėdainiai district. 1935. CPK

The pastor of the Kernavė parish Nikodemus Švogžlys-Milžinas (first from the right) built the folk house “Vilnius” at the demarcation line with Poland in Kernavė – in front of them on a pedestal in the direction of Vilnius the howling Iron Wolf. 1934. CPK

143 hoisting a ﬂ ag. Both practical and folksy. Those towers of expectation for Vilnius are painted in the shape of red bricks.154

Both the farmers who were determined to built a symbolic monument in the parish square of the nearest village at their own expense as well as professional artists became totally obsessed with the idea of Vilnius. An example of this could be the 1929 design of Christ’s Resurrection Church in Kaunas by architect Karolis Reisonas . The façade of the future church was supposed to remind one of Vilnius Cathedral, the towers in the corners were to remind one of ancient Lithuanian castles, and a “large statue of Christ stretching out his hand to Vilnius, to the Gate of Dawn and the blessed Vilnius Region” was to be erected over the church.155 One could add that the symbolic images of Vilnius – Gediminas Castle, the Gate of Dawn or Vilnius Cathedral with the remains of Grand Duke Vytautas were undoubtedly considered to be the property of Lithuanians, therefore the Lithuanian society of the inter-war period reacted sensitively to any attempts made by the Poles to appropriate these things. Hence, the news that the Poles intended to carry out maintenance work on Gediminas Castle Hill caused anxiety in Lithuania, while news about the plans of the Vilnus Diocese to sell tapestries abroad, which were stored in the treasure trove of the Cathedral, led to general discontent.156 In 1927, the news that the Poles were going to crown the picture of the Madonna of the Gate of Dawn with the title of the “Queen of the Crown of Poland” caused a storm of indignation in Lithuania. People were urged to protest, stating that the crowning was like a symbolic union of Lithuania with Poland.157 Alongside the already-mentioned Lithuanian symbols that could be considered silent symbols, there was the individual personality of Basanavičius , who was considered to be a living symbol of the modern Lithuanian state. In this sense, what could be called the “symbolic capital” of Basanavičius increased dramatically after 1923 when he made a decision to stay and live in Vilnius. Basanavičius became fi rst and foremost a living symbol that testifi ed to the everlasting idea of the Lithuanian state with its capital in Vilnius. In 1926, when Basanavičius celebrated his 75th birthday, the government’s offi cial paper Lietuva [Lithuania] called him “the Guardian of Vilnius” who did not leave “our capital Vilnius that was seized by our ravenous neighbour, where there is severe Polonisation and the destruction of everything that is Lithuanian” and by his presence in Vilnius reminded all Lithuanians of the “unresolved task” – the recovery of the capital.158

154 RIMOŠIUS [SAVICKIS], Kelionės, p. 109. 155 J. MATIJOŠAITIS: Prisikėlimo Bažnyčia Kaune [Christ’s Resurrection Church in Kaunas], in: Rytas from 28.03.1929; IDEM: Atsikėlimo Bažnyčios projektas [Design of the Christ’s Res- urrection Church], in: Rytas from 11.05.1929. 156 Lenkai Vilniaus baziliką nori “gelbėti” išparduodami jos turtus [The Poles Want “to Save” Vilnius Basilica by Selling its Assets], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.01.1933. 157 J.: Naujas lenkų “apaštalavimo” metodas Vilnijoj [Poles’ New Method of ‟Apostolating” in Vilnius Region], in: Lietuva from 31.05.1927. 158 Seimo Prezidiumo sveikinimas d-rui J. Basanavičiui [Greeting of the Presidium of the Sei- mas to Dr. Jonas Basanavičius], in: Lietuva from 23.11.1926.

144 Tomb of J. Basanavičius in Rasos cemetery in Vil- nius on the day of the dedication of the monument. 16.02.1929. LLFI

The last years of Basanavičius’s life and his death in Vilnius in 1927 strengthened his symbolic capital as the “great Vilniusite” even more. The mourning that followed Basanavičius’s death was used in Lithuania to instill the idea of the liberation of Vilnius in society. All of the obituaries dedicated to Basanavičius highlighted his links with Vil- nius.159 For those who lived in Lithuania at the time, Basanavičius’s death and funeral in Vilnius appeared to be yet another sign “that Vilnius was and will be Lithuania’s”.160 Basanavičius’ death ended the creation of his myth as the guardian of the capital of Lithuania, the “great Vilniusite”. In addition a new place to serve as reminder for Lith- uanians appeared in Rasos cemetery, which was Basanavičius’s grave. In later years the anniversary of his death was marked by a mobilising oath: “We shall complete his work only after we get Vilnius back”.161

159 A.a. D-ras Jonas Basnavičius [The Late Dr. Basanavičius], in: Lietuva from 17.02.1927; D-ro J. Basanavičiaus laidotuvių diena. Respublikos Prezidento ir Seimo Pirmininko kalbos [The Day of Dr. Basanavičius’ Funeral. Speeches of the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Seimas], in: Lietuva from 22.02.1927. 160 MOTIEJUS LUKŠYS: Dienų aidesiai [Echoes of the Days], in: Panevėžys District G. Pet- kevičaitė-Bitė Public Library, f. 68, b. 12, l. 24-25. 161 Iškilmingai paminėta Dr. J. Basanavičius mirties sukaktis [Dr. Basanavičius’ Death Anniver- sary Solemnly Commemorated], in: Lietuvos aidas from 16.02.1937.

145 When looking for ways to symbolically bind the people living in Lithuania with the Vilnius region and the Lithuanians living there “even deeper and stronger than by means of a feeling of ethnic commonality and common political aim” (while at the same time spreading the idea of the liberation of Vilnius), in 1936 an idea occurred to the VLU to build Vilnius crosses162 all around Lithuania. With the initiation of a Vilnius cross building campaign, the VLU tried to mobilise people for the Vilnius movement, basing their idea on the Catholic identity prevalent among Lithuanians. The VLU even adopted rules for building Vilnius crosses. They sought to turn the cross, a religious symbol of self-sacriﬁ ce and devotion, into a symbol of a belief in the ideals of Lithua- nian Nationalism, having also called it a “symbol of national unity”. Therefore instructions were given to only build wooden crosses that complied with national cross-making traditions.163 It was expected that large Catholic public organisations operating in Lithuania would join the campaign of building Vilnius crosses. A story about how Poles were destroying national crosses being built by the Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region, which was already exploited in propaganda discourse on the liberation of Vilnius, was also used in the cross building campaign.164 Other propaganda campaigns carried out at that time also served the campaign to liberate Vilnius. For example, the Vilnius liberation campaign was closely related to another important inter-war propaganda campaign – the 1930 campaign for the anniversary of Vytautas the Great dedicated to paying tribute to Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas (1350-1430). In the collective memory of Lithuanians, this ruler was considered the most signiﬁ cant symbol of historical Lithuania. The historical testimonies of the power of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were particularly attractive to the political regime, who sought to use the successes of Vytautas the Great to justify the authoritarian regime. And also the fact that Vilnius was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithua- nia under the rule of Vytautas the Great and also place where he was buried became the favourite arguments that were employed in propaganda discourse, which were used as the basis for Lithuania’s right to Vilnius, while the vocabulary of the political rethoric was supplemented with slogans using much of the same information. All propaganda rethoric of the anniversary year, which helped to create the cult of Vytautas the Great, accentuated the Grand Duke’s link with Vilnius. The anniversary year was begun with a statement in Lietuvos aidas that the greatest respect for Vytautas the Great would be demonstrated by re-establishing the greatness of the Lithuania of his time, adding that nobody dreamed about the borders of the Lithuania of Vytautas the Great, but that

162 MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA: Vilniaus kryžiai [Crosses of Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 22 (1936), pp. 363-364. 163 RŪKŠTELĖ. 164 Kryžių niekinimas ir lietuvių kankinimas Marcinkonyse [Blasphemy of Crosses and Torture of Lithuanians in Marcinkonys], in: Mūsų Vilnius 35-36 (1933), pp. 495-496; Vilniaus li- etuvių spauda apie įvykius Marcinkonyse [Vilnius Press about the Events in Marcinkonys], ibidem, pp. 496-497; Po ilgų tampymų net okupantų teismas nubaudė Nevašių kryžiaus nai- kintojus [After Long Dragging Out Even the Invaders’ Court Punished the Destroyers of the Cross of Nevaišiai], Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius], p. 498; DZŪKAS VARĖNIS [UŽDAVINYS].

146 The Commemoration of Vytautas the Great in Truskava (Kėdainiai district). Children are holding the poster “Vytautas, lead us to Vilnius!” 08.09.1930. CNM

On 09.10.1930 in the garden of the War Museum in Kaunas was unveiled the “Black Stone” – an obelisk with the inscription: “Remember, Lithuanian, the insidious Pole, after signing the Suwałki treaty on 7 October 1920, 2 days later broke the treaty and abducted your capital Vilnius”. CAM. NML

147 The raised banners by the monument For Those Who Died for Lithuania’s Freedom in Žemaičių Naumies- tis: “Lithuanian, Don’t Forget Vilnius!” “Hey, world, we will not be at peace without Vilnius!” 1930. CAM. NML

VLU demonstration in Garliava. The rider on the left depicts an ancient Lithuanian warrior, while the riders on the right are holding a banner with the inscription “Let us prepare to liberate Vilnius”. 1930. CAM. NML

148 they sought to have “an independent Lithuania within its ethnographic borders with its capital in Vilnius”.165 The mobilising Vilnius Liberation campaign corresponded to the programme of nationalism of the authoritarian regime established in Lithuania, which could be catego- rised as a programme of nationalising nationalism, a phrase coined by Rogers Brubak- er .166 The Lithuanian nationalising nationalism did not differ in anything from other nationalising nationalisms: the Lithuanian nation was considered to be the only legal owner of the state, while the state itself was treated as being meant fi rst and foremost for the political and cultural expression of the Lithuanian national community. At the same time the cultural and economic position of the Lithuanian nation in “its own” state was seen as weakened due to the earlier national suppression and the creation of a national space that was left unfi nished. The Vilnius liberation campaign was the liberation of a part of space of the nation state and the nation, which not only helped to identify those who were guilty for this weakened nation, but also offered a programme to recover the grandour of the nation. The Vilnius liberation campaign became a kind of response to and a counter-argument to the challenge of Polish Nationalism posed with its nationalising nationalism. The Lithuanian cultural and political elite based its right, and even the duty of the state to observe the conditions in which “its” ethno-linguistic compatriots lived and to support their activity and defend their interests in the Vilnius Region, on the right of their “external historical motherland”. When Poland complained about the persecution of Poles in Lithuania to the world on the basis of the right of their “external historical motherland” Lithuania announced information about the persecutions of Lithuanians in Poland, fi rst and foremost in the Vilnius Region. This was more than combative rhetoric – both communities of the national minorities became hostages of retaliation – every step that was directed against the community of a national minority in one country soon received an adequate response in the other.167

Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region

It is difﬁ cult to give an unequivocal answer to the question of what was crucially important for the peasant Lithuanian society in helping them to realise that Vilnius as a city belonged to a Lithuanian “national body” and was its only capital. Propagan- da discourse accentuated that Vilnius was the historical capital of Lithuania, which showed the long tradition of its statehood, and that national and religious symbols of the Lithuanians considered to be most signiﬁ cant were concentrated in the city (such as

165 Vytauto Didžiojo 500 m. mirties sukaktuvės [The 500th Anniversary of the Death of Vytau- tas the Great], in: Lietuvos aidas from 06.02.1930. 166 The conceptions of nationalising nationalism and nationalism of the external historical motherland were proposed by Rogers Brubaker when investigating post-Soviet nationalism in Eastern Europe. According to him, the type of nationalising nationalism was distinct in inter-war and post-Soviet Eastern Europe. For more about it see: BRUBAKER. 167 This was revealed in the following books: MAKAUSKAS; BUCHOWSKI, Polacy.

149 Postcard with a map of Lithuania in which is depicted “the territory of Lithuania occupied by Poland”. This territory was marked on all the maps published in Lithuania. 1933. CAM. NML

The postcard distributed in Lithua- nia with the inscription: “Let us rescue the youth of Vilnius!” About 1925. CAM. NML

150 The postcard “O Lithuanian, do not forget Vilnius!” Postcard “Without Vilnius there is no homeland and depicting a Lithuanian girl enslaved by the Poles to recover it – all our marches” with a map of Lit- distributed by the Riflemen's Union of Lithuania in huania, on which is depicted “the part of Lithuania 1924. CAM. NML abducted by the Poles”. On the postcard it is written in the Lithuanian, English and French languages: “That part of Lithuania, with the capital Vilnius which the Poles seized in 1920 is in deep mourning today. It bears the heavy yoke of a harsh occupation hopefully awaiting the happy hour of delivery”. 1930. CAM. NML

Gediminas Castle or the Gate of Dawn). Alongside these points, arguments concerning a land occupied by “a foreigner” and the injustices experienced could be arguments that could bring about the actualising of the Vilnius issue. And most likely, the weighty argument that helped to instill the idea that Vilnius was a Lithuanian city, was the issue of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region that was carefully actualised by the VLU. Both the VLU168 and the government of Lithuania declared that their major concern were the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region, ﬁ rst of all as a guaranteer of the preservation of Lithuanianness in Vilnius.

168 Conﬁ dential circular No. 39 of the Central Committee of the VLU of 26 March 1935 to the committees of the VLU branches, in: LCVA, f. 565, ap. 3, b. 3, l. 10.

151 It is diffi cult to say exactly how many Lithuanians lived in inter-war Poland. Ac- cording to the offi cial data of the 1931 Polish census, 82,000 Lithuanians lived in Po- land.169 There were 1579 Lithuanians in the city of Vilnius, the population of which was 195,000.170 Researchers debate about the reliability of these statistics.171 Historian Bro- nius Makauskas thinks that about 300,000 Lithuanians might have lived in inter-war Poland, while in Vilnius this fi gure amounted to 7,000.172 One thing does not raise any doubts – the number of Lithuanians in the Second Polish Republic was small compared to other national groups. The life of the Lithuanians beyond the demarcation line was carefully watched in Lithuania. If we look at Vilniaus Golgota: okupuotosios Lietuvos lietuvių darbo ir kančių 1919-1928 metų dienoraštis [The Golgotha of Vilnius: the Diary of Work and Sufferings of Lithuanians of Occupied Lithuania 1919-1928], a publication intended for the public in Lithuania “to become acquainted with the life of Lithuanians in occupied Lithuania” we fi nd not only a registry of offences and injustices that were experienced, but also a real diary of the life of Lithuanians that testifi ed to the vitality of the Lithuanian community in the Vilnius Region.173 In the propaganda discourse on the liberation of Vilnius, there were efforts to show the bustling and vigorous life of Vilnius’s Lithuanians, stating that despite a policy of discrimination by the Polish government against Lithuanian organisations, these organisations operated with en- ergetic vitality both in Vilnius itself and in the whole of the Vilnus Region.174 After the Conference of Ambassadors confi rmed the eastern borders of Poland in 1923, the Provisional Committee of Vilnius Lithuanians, which represented the interests of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region, changed the direction of their activity substantially: all efforts were directed from the campaigning policy of Vilnius belonging to Lithuania towards the internal issues of the Lithuanian community, focusing on the strengthening the community’s cultural and economic positions.175 From the spring of 1923, Vilnius’s Lithuanians played the role of a national minority in the Polish state and became living witnesses to the Lithuanianness of Vilnius that emphasized their autochthony in the Vilnius Region.176 In 1930, when considering the theoretical possibilities of Lithuania recovering Vil- nius, Lithuanian public fi gure Žemaitis highlighted three different paths: in the case of armed confl ict, after the state borders in the eastern part of Europe would be re-

169 MAKAUSKAS, p. 17. 170 Drugi, Miasto Wilno, p. 11. 171 MAKAUSKAS, pp. 11-22; JANUSZEWSKA-JURKIEWICZ, pp. 513-524. 172 MAKAUSKAS, pp. 18-21. 173 B. ŠĖMIS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA], Vilniaus. 174 V. U- NYS [VINCAS UŽDAVINYS]: Vilniaus krašto lietuvių jaunimo organizacinis gyvenimas [Organisational Life of Lithuanian Youth of Vilnius Region], in: IDEM/KAUZA, p. 19. 175 ALSEIKA, p. 79. 176 Laikinojo Vilniaus Lietuvių Komiteto memorialas įteiktas Lenkijos Vyriausybei 1923 IX 4 Varšuvoje [Memorial from the Provisional Lithuanian Committee of Vilnius Submitted to the Government of Poland in Warsaw on 4 September 1923], in: Lietuvos kelias from 30.09.1923.

152 In a poster a member of the Riflemen of Lithuania The postcard distributed in Lithuania with the pointing to the ruled by Poland Vilnius says: inscription: “We, like hungry wolves, o Vilnius, we “Lithuanian! Remember that the predator Poles will defend the honor of our ancestors!” 1930. over the dead bodies of our brothers invaded the CAM. NML eternal capital of Lithuania, and with their heavy paws knitted the shackles of slavery over it. Look at the one-third of Lithuanian lands grabbed by the Poles! After all, we not today – (but) tomorrow, as one, shoulder to shoulder, will march to take back what is ours! We will stamp down the power of the predators and liberate Vilnius”. Cover of the journal Trimitas [Trumpet] of the Riflemen’s Union of Lithuania. Trimitas, 1930, no. 41 drawn; if the regions occupied by Poland (the territories in which national minorities – Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians – dominated) rose up in rebellion, and if the participants in the uprising were supported by neighbouring countries; or in “a calmer way of evolution” would be achieved - seeking to ensure peace in Eastern Europe, the big European states would make Poland grant “special political status” to the Vilni- us Region, which would become a ﬁ rst stage of sorts for the Vilnius Region to draw closer to Lithuania. Žemaitis thought that if any of these three possible scenarios were implemented, the role of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region would be of the upmost importance. During a time of war or armed rebellion, Vilnius’s Lithuanians would have to play the role of the most active ﬁ ghters, because if Lithuanians did not take the in-

153 itiative it would fi nd itself in the hands of the Soviet Union thanks to the Belarusians very soon and would be lost. And if the Vilnius issue were resolved along the path of “evolution”, Vilnius’s Lithuanians would become the most important factor for Lith- uania’s infl uence in the Vilnius Region. Therefore a proposal was made to strengthen the cultural and economic position of the Vilnius Lithuanians as much as possible. The greatest amount of attention was focused on strengthening the economic position of the Vilnius Lithuanians. It was hoped that Lithuanian societies of economic nature that had expanded in the Vilnius Region would strengthen the economic well-being of Lithuanian society, which in its turn would strengthen the position of the Lithuanian cultural societies. Moreover, it was thought that Lithuanian agricultural societies of a cooperative nature would create the preconditions for Lithuanian public fi gures to draw closer to the broadest possible swathe of the lower classes of society in the Vilnius Region and even try to Lithuanise them. Thus, attempts were made to formulate a task for the Lithuanian activists in Vilnius to establish permanent contacts with Belarusians and other national minorities of the Vilnius Region, and creating a platform for joint political and economic action. The aim of this activity was to prepare other national communities of the Vilnius Region (fi rst and foremost the Belarusians) for the project of Lithuania’s statehood, and at the decisive moment (when the fate of the Vilnius Region was decided) to await at least “neutrality favourable to Lithuania” if not active support for Lithuania’s actions.177 The political elite of Lithuania approved of these tasks set for the Vilnius Lithua- nians. The Vilnius Lithuanians tried to establish relations with other national minorities in Vilnius. In January of 1927, the Temporary Chairman of the Committee of Vilnius Lithuanians Danielius Alseika, in reviewing the results of the activity of the previous year, stated that the Committee’s main focus was directed toward the struggle of Lithuanian society for national schools in the Vilnius Region and the maintenance of relations with “all of what were called the minorities of Poland, as well as the organisation by Lithuanian society for a fi ght for its national schools”.178 The minorities that are mentioned are the Belarusians and Jews. If organising Lithuanian education in the Vilnius Region was a priority of the work of the Provisional Committee of Vilnius Lith- uanians, the close cooperation with other national minorities was fi rst and foremost an instrument that helped to defend the interests of the Lithuanian minority in the sphere of education, which was their most sensitive spot. The greatest problem for the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region was education – the Polish government sought to turn schools into an instrument of assimilation, and the Lithuanians sought, with the help of schools, to preserve or even strengthen the position of the Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region. The issue of Lithuanian schools in the Vilnius Region was of great signifi cance to the Lithuanian government, which carefully followed the processes taking place in the sphere of education on the other side of the

177 ZIGMAS ŽEMAITIS: On the Issue of Our Actions in Vilnius Region and the Campaign for Ar- ranging that Region (explanation of the idea of the Vilnius Affairs Council) 12.03.1930[?] [manuscript of the memorandum], in: VUB RS, f. 129, b. 267. 178 Laikinojo Vilniaus Lietuvių Komiteto pranešimas [Information of the Provisional Lithuani- an Committee of Vilnius], in: Vilniaus aidas from 18.01.1927.

154 demarcation line. The very existence of Lithuanian schools in the Vilnius Region testifi ed to the existence of the Lithuanian minority, and gave it reasons to claim the rights to the Vilnius Region as a Lithuanian territory. At the same time, the administrative persecution of Lithuanian schools by the Polish administration out of political motivation gave Lithuanians a reason to internationalise the issue of the Lithuanian minority in the Vilnius Region and to remind others of the rights of the Lithuanian state to Vilnius. Lithuania was interested in preserving as large and viable a Lithuanian community in the Vilnius Region as possible by representing it as the true owner of these lands. The Lithuanian government essentially had only two instruments at their disposal for helping the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region. One was defending the rights of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region as a national minority. The second was supporting their educational and cultural activities in the Vilnius Region. Financial support became the most effective instrument of support provided to the Lithuanian community. At the beginning of 1927, the Provisional Committee of Vilnius Lithuanians, speaking of the diffi cult economic situation of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region, admitted that the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region would be incapable of maintaining their educational, cultural and charitable institutions by themselves.179 The Lithuanian cultural institutions and private schools did not receive any support from the Polish government and remain operating only thanks to support and donations. The greatest amount of support came from the Lithuanian government, which secretly supported Lithuanian schools, public organisations and the press of the Vilnius Region fi nancially from November of 1920. The Provisional Committee of Vilnius Lithuanians coordinated this support, which came to Vilnius via surrounding countries or by smuggling. Support was gen- erous. For example, in 1924, there was a total of 1.15 million litas that was allocated, 1.9 million litas in 1925 and 2.7 million litas in 1926. In later years support exceeded one million litas.180 According to historian Makauskas, it would have not been possible to develop Lithuanian education without this fi nancial support, having in mind the fact that the Polish government did not support Lithuanian education, and that the economic situation of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region was complicated. It was only due to fi nancial assistance from Lithuania that the number of Lithuanian schools grew in the Vilnius Region.181 While there was an alternative with respect to primary schools, with both a private and state school, there was no alternative in secondary education – both Lithuanian secondary schools were private. These were Kęstutis Secondary School in Švenčionys and Vytautas the Great Secondary School in Vilnius. The most important Lithuanian centre for education was located in Vilnius. It was the location of the private Vytautas the Great Secondary School, where the number of school children fl uctuated from 300 to 500 pupils. This was the primary place for edu- cating a nationally-minded Lithuanian intelligentsia, with teachers at this school being active members of Vilnius’s Lithuanian community. Most Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region who chose to go on to higher education studied at the University of Stephan

179 Laikinojo Vilniaus Lietuvių Komiteto pranešimas [Information of the Provisional Commit- tee of Vilnius Lithuanians], in: Vilniaus aidas from 18.01.1927. 180 MAKAUSKAS, pp. 130-131. 181 Ibidem, pp. 133, 165.

155 Bathory in Vilnius. Lithuanian vocational schools run by the Lithuanian Charity Socie- ty operated in Vilnius as well. More than a hundred boys and girls learned crafts at the schools run by this society. Though this vocational training was implemented above all as an educational project, keeping the future of the Lithuanian youth in mind, it would also be regarded as a project for strengthening the position of Lithuanians in Vilnius. Lithuanian activists hoped that the Lithuanians who had mastered a craft would be able to established themselves in the city easier and thus strengthen the position of Lithuani- ans in Vilnius in the long run. The activity of the Lithuanian Charity Society in organising shelters also deserves mention – in 1928, a total of 10 shelters run by the society operated in Vilnius. Other Lithuanian educational and cultural institutions operated in Vilnius as well: there were two evening courses for adults that were run on a permanent basis, reading-rooms-libraries maintained by the Rytas [Morning] Society, the number of which totalled twenty in the middle of the 1930s. The Lithuanian intelligentsia was also concentrated in Vilnius, though their ranks were considerably smaller after many Lithuanian intellectuals had been forced to leave the Vilnius Region for political and economic reasons, or had been deported by the Pol- ish authorities between 1919 and 1922. According to statistics from one of the public fi gures of the Vilnius Lithuanians, Alseika, only a few of the approximately 20 Lithu- anian physicians remained in Vilnius. As a result of such cases, the Lithuanian intelligentsia in the Vilnius Region consisted mainly of teachers and priests.182 Nonetheless, the situation was not so pessimistic, as in the second half of the 1930s the Vilnius Lithuanians already had their own literature – according to literary critic Alma Lapin- skienė, the situation was good not only in poetry and prose, but also in the sphere of drama and literary criticism. A modest but very original Lithuanian literary life formed in Vilnius.183 The fact that Vilnius did became an important centre of Lithuanian education and culture in the Vilnius Region was heavily infl uenced not only by pragmatic reasons and the allure and pull of the city for the whole of the region, but also by the competition between the Lithuanians and the Poles for the right to the city. Lithuania’s aim to get Vilnius back naturally consolidated the forces of Lithuanians in the city. If during the initial stage this was in essence a political concentration – attention was focused on Vilnius as the centre of Lithuanian political activity, after 1923 they sought to create and maintain it as the centre of Lithuanian culture. The cultural and educational activity had to testify to the viability of the Lithuanian element in Vilnius. It should be noted that Lithuanianness was manifested by the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region in different forms. For example, starting in 1927, there were annual pilgrimages made by Lithuanians from the villages of the Vilnius Region to Vilnius Calvary that began being organised during Pentacost. The pilgrims arrived, accompanied by a Lithuanian teacher. On the fi rst day of Pentacost, a procession of Lithuanian pilgrims singing Lithuanian songs marched all the way from the Church of St Nicholas through the city to Calvary Church. People of the time remembered that this caused surprise for the city dwellers: where did all these Lithuanians in Vilnius come from? On

182 ALSEIKA, p. 11. 183 LAPINSKIENĖ.

156 the second day of Pentacost the pilgrims visited the Gate of Dawn, Gediminas Castle, the Hill of Three Crosses, the churches of the city, and in the evening had a Lithuanian party with a perfomance in the halls of the parish of St. Nicholas and Vytautas the Great Secondary School.184 This religious/national pilgrimage to Vilnius had a powerful manifestation-like character, acting as a testimony to the Lithuanianness of Vilnius. This was how the Lithuanian community of Vilnius ﬁ t the image of a subjugated Lithuanian capital which was spread in Lithuania. This image of the Lithuanians that remained on the other side of the administrative border – fellow-countrymen that were living in the Vilnius Region and suffering from the oppression of the Polish occupiers – that was created in full detail in Lithuania im- pacted people in Lithuania with particular forcefulness and greatly helped it to perceive Vilnius as a Lithuanian city. The image that was fostered of Vilnius as a subjugated city that was inhabited by Lithuanians had both to validate the rights of the Lithuanians to the city and remove doubt about the Lithuanianness of the city. Meanwhile, the linguistic situation in Vilnius only encouraged doubts about the Lithuanianness of the city, and those who tried to prove it had to admit that

an individual who does not know the circumstances who ﬁ nds himself for example in Vilni- us, can form the wrong opinion that there are not many Lithuanians there. One hears mainly Polish spoken on the streets, and in churches and various institutions Polishness prevails to an even greater extent.185

It was stated that the Polish-speaking landscape of the city of Vilnius was a natural result of what happened to all cities, which “even being inhabited by local national elements, when they fall under foreign rule, lose their local national traits and superﬁ - cially acquire the foreign features of those ruling”.186 Attempts were made to prove to Lithuanian society that the inhabitants of Vilnius, who were treated as Poles, were actually Lithuanian by origin,187 and in public one does not hear Lithuanian spoken only because the Lithuanians, who experienced national persecution, were simply afraid of speaking Lithuanian in public.188 By means of this kind of interpretation, they attempted to thwart all doubt about the true Lithuanianness of Vilnius. At the same time they painted an image of a captive Vilnius that was Lithuanian. The everyday life of the Lithuanians residing in Vilnius was in the centre of this image of a subjugated Vilnius, which certainly did not lack attention in inter-war Lithu- ania. The stories about the life of the Lithuanians in Vilnius were usually accompanied by complaints about the Polish government, which persecuted those who spoke Lith- uanian, and forbade the people to learn and pray in Lithuanian, and Lithuanian public

184 MAKARIŪNIENĖ, p. 83. 185 Vilnius ir Vilniaus kraštas, p. 70. 186 Ibidem, p. 72. 187 ŽEMAITIS, p. 33. 188 P. V IEŠTAUTAS [PETRAS KRAUJALIS]: Vilniaus lietuviai [Lithuanians of Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 19 (1931), p. 451.

157 fi gures that were imprisoned.189 This image of Vilnius, which was fi ghting hard for the right to be Lithuanian, in which the life of Vilnius’s Lithuanians under Polish rule was likened to the life of Lithuanians under Tsarist rule when the empire mercilessly erased all marks of Lithuanian identity.190 Information about restricting the activity of the Lithuanian community in Vilnius experienced on the part of the Polish government, as well as violations of national rights appeared on the front pages of the offi cial paper of the government.191 The image of the Lithuanians who were experiencing national oppression moved from the public arena to the schools. The pupils told the following in their letters sent to the editorial offi ce of Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius]:

The teacher told us that our brothers the Lithuanians lived a hard and poor life in the subjugated Vilnius Region. The Polish eagle192 is oppressing them with its hard talons. Our language and other Lithuanian things are forbidden in this subjugated region. The Poles banned Lithuanian schools in Vilnius and abused our brothers who did not want to attend Polish schools.193

The image of a subjugated, Lithuanian Vilnius had to testify not so much to the very subjugation of the Lithuanian city as to state the undoubted Lithuanianness of the city. It should be added that the defence of the rights of the Lithuanian community in Vilnius brought about and made relevant the Vilnius issue in Lithuania and at the same time provided an opportunity to the Lithuania government to internationalise the issue of Vilnius under the pretext of defending the rights of Lithuanians as a national minority. The following stirring headlines appeared in the Lithuanian press: “We are not inter- fering with Polish affairs but we are defending the Lithuanians of occupied Lithuania against violence and arbitrariness!”194 The issue of the Vilnius Lithuanians that was brought to the fore on various occasions and under different pretexts was an especially convenient way of constantly actualising and keeping up the tension on the issue of Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania and Lithuanians. For example, in 1934 the Supreme Committee to Support the Starving People in the Vilnius Region was set up in Lithuania, which was done in response to the fact that in 1933 the harvest was poor in the Vilnius Region and a large part of the rural population found itself on the brink of starvation. The VLU played an especially

189 DZŪKAS VARĖNIS [UŽDAVINYS], p. 12. 190 PAPEČKYS, Vilniaus, p. 18. 191 Lenkai Vilniaus kraštą nori padaryti lietuvybės kapinynu [The Poles Want to Turn Vilnius into a Graveyard of Lithuanians], in: Lietuvos aidas from 02.12.1936; Lenkai Vilniaus krašto lietuvius padarė įkaitais? [Have the Poles Made the Lithuanians of Vilnius Region Hostag- es?], in: Lietuvos aidas 03.12.1936. 192 The Polish eagle – a white eagle in the coat-of-arms of Poland. 193 Mažieji rašo apie Vilnių [The Little Ones Write about Vilnius], in: Mūsų Vilnius 13 (1932), p. 303. 194 Ne į Lenkijos reikalus kišamės, bet giname okupuotos Lietuvos lietuvius nuo smurto ir sau- valės! [We Do Not Interfere With the Affairs of Poland but Defend the Lithuanians of Occu- pied Lithuania from Violence and Self-will!] in: Lietuvos aidas from 12.05.1936.

158 Cartoon “The ʽCulturedʼ Marches of Mister Bociański ...” Postscript: “With the current voivod Bociański ruling Vilnius, the persecution of Lithuanian organizations became very more acute”. In this way the Lithuanian press portrayed the Vilnius Voivod Ludwik Bociański who in 1936 introduced his policies of restricting the rights of national minorities – as if with his colonel’s shoe trampling the Lithuanian societies in the Vilnius region. Sekmadienis [Sunday], 06.12.1936 active part in organising this support with ﬂ yers urging the population to support their starving fellow countrymen and presented an initiative of Lithuanian students who, by refusing food once a week, allocated the money saved to supporting the starving Lith- uanians of the Vilnius Region.195 The campaigns for providing support (both moral and material) for the Vilnius Lithuanians organised in Lithuania served two major aims: to provide as comprehensive support as possible to the Vilnius Lithuanians and to instill the idea in Lithuanian society that Vilnius was undoubtedly a Lithuanian city and the real capital of Lithuania. The news about anti-Lithuanian campaigns of the Polish government received the strongest response in Lithuania. For example, the closing down of the Vilnius Teachers’ Training College and 48 private schools belonging to the Rytas Society on 4-5 October 1927. More than 2,000 schoolchildren attended those schools. Or the 1936 anti-Lithua- nian campaign in Vilnius, which was received in Lithuania by organising public meetings with protest resolutions. The care given to the Vilnius Lithuanians acted as a catalyst for the mobilisation of society for the Vilnius liberation campaign. Representatives of remote places in Lith- uania demonstrated solidarity with “the Lithuanians residing in the capital of Lithu- ania”196 on different occasions (from wishes during the holidays and promises to the Vilnius Lithuanians to “liberate them from the talons of the white eagle” to compassion and protests over the persecution of Lithuanians).

195 KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, pp. 212-215; The VLU Circuits of 12 March 1934, 21 March 1934 to the Committees of VLU districts and branches, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 314, l. 67-68. 196 Sympathies, greetings and wishes of public organisations to the Lithuanians of Vilnius Re- gion in 1933 - 1937, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 5/1-2.

159 This was not only the defence of the national rights of their fellow countrymen. In 1936, Poland started implementing a new policy of discrimination policy concerning the Lithuanians, which turned into the radical restriction of the rights of the Lithuanian minority.197 The representatives of the Lithuanian political elite became worried that this might end in the destruction of the Lithuanian national community in the Vilnius Region. With the loss of the community, the path to manifesting Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius Region would be blocked, and some years later the Vilnius issue would stop existing altogether.198

Relations Established

On 11 March 1938, a Lithuanian frontier guard shot dead a soldier from the Polish Bor- der Protection Corps who crossed the Lithuanian border. This incident involving a fi re- arm on the Lithuanian-Polish border was nothing new: seven Lithuanian border police- men were shot dead or died of wounds from 15 September 1927 to 28 May 1936, and the number of those wounded was double that.199 Frontier incidents of various kinds were common and a procedure for explaining how they happened was established; however, that time Poland rejected their regular practice of explaining the confl ict. It became clear to Lithuania that the confl ict would not be resolved so easily. The Polish political elite decided to take advantage of the confl ict and make Lithuania establish diplomatic relations with Poland. On 17 March, Lithuania received an ultimatum from Poland, demanding that Lithuania establish diplomatic relations with it within 48 hours. Wanting to “help” Lithuania decide, Poland started gathering its armed forces on the border. There was a wave of anti-Lithuanian manifestations with the slogans “March to Kaunas” that swept over cities in Poland, and the windows of Lithuanian organisations were broken in Vilnius. On 19 March Lithuania, being afraid of the consequences of an armed confl ict, accepted Poland’s ultimatum.200 Vaclovas Šliogeris, who was the former aide-de-camp of the President of Lithuania, noted that Poland’s ultimatum was not anything unexpected for the Lithuania government, but that it was a great surprise to the public.201 The fact that the government, which constantly urged the people to be prepared for defending themselves against Polish aggression, silently accepted the ultimatum was an even greater and unpleasant surprise to the public. The majority of Lithuanians perceived the acceptance of the ultimatum as the humiliation of the state.202 People of the time wrote in their diaries that the whole of Lithuania had a mood that one has on the day of a funeral, and everyone

197 MAKAUSKAS, pp. 198-230; JANUSZEWSKA-JURKIEWICZ, pp. 590-597. 198 T. Katelbach’s report about the situation in Lithuania, in: AAN, MSZ, vol. 6081, p. 9. 199 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, pp. 250-251. 200 For more about the circumstances of the ultimatum see: ibidem, pp. 250-264; ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939, pp. 309-333; IDEM, Ultimatum. 201 ŠLIOGERIS, p. 160. 202 GIEDRIUS JANAUSKAS, pp. 93-120.

160 supposedly talked “only about this foolish surrendering”.203 The oppositional Chris- tian Democrat newspaper XX amžius (The 20th Century), which published what was thought to be the real text of the Polish diplomatic note that supposedly contained the point demanding that the article in the Lithuanian Constitution that declared Vilnius the capital of Lithuania should be deleted added fuel to the fl ames of this patriotically disposed society.204 In this way it was like the Christian Democrats had tried once again to draw the “Vilnius Card” as they had in politics in the 1920s. On the day of the announcement of this false information, which was the same day that Lithuania had to give an answer to Poland’s diplomatic note, the news soon spread that the government had accepted that ultimatum (which supposedly contained a point confi rming Lithua- nia’s relinguishing of its rights to Vilnius), which in the eyes of the public turned the political regime into a traitor of its national interests.205 The government was late in replying to these rumours. They then rushed to explain that the rumours going around that it had supposedly renounced Vilnius were absolutely unsubstantiated.206 These delayed excuses did not preserve the authority of the government, which was collapsing. On 21 March, in protest against Poland’s ultimatum and the government’s position of capitulation, a meeting unauthorised by the government was held at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which turned into a demonstration where the police had to “cool down” the angry protesters.207 The offi cial newspaper of the government had to admit that “the spontaneous movement launched by our nation after the news about Poland’s ultimatum had spread was not easy to restrain”.208 The VLU published an appeal to its members and society in their offi cial paper, urging them not to yield to those who had instigated the event, underlining that “the roumours regarding the issue of Vilnius were groundless”.209 In its turn, the Alytus District of the VLU distributed a number of fl yers in which it tried to persuade its members that “nobody gave Vilnius to the Poles”, and the citizens who spread the rumours that “Vilnius had already been given over to Po- land” were acting simply “for the gain of Poland and for its money”. At the same time the VLU urged its members to respond to the Polish ultimatum with greater intensity

203 VINCAS UŽDAVINYS: Chronicles, in: LMAVB RS, f. 183, b. 35, l. 59; ZENONAS IVINSKIS: Die- noraštis [Ivinskis’ Diary], in: LNMMB, f. 29, b. 14/2, l. 101-102. 204 Šiandieną Lietuva atsako [Today Lithuania Answers], in: XX amžius from 09.03.1938. 205 Pasitikėkime savimi! [Let Us Trust Ourselves!], in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.03.1938. 206 Gandai nepagrįsti [Rumours are Unfounded], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.03.1938; Pasitikėkime savimi! [Let Us Trust Ourselves!], in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.03.1938. 207 Vakar tūkstančiai kauniečių prie Nežinomojo Kareivio kapo prisiekė ginti Lietuvos ne- priklausomybę [Yesterday Thousands of Residents of Kaunas Took an Oath to Defend Lithuania’s Independence at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier], in: Lietuvos aidas from 22.03.1938; Susikaupimo protestas prie Nežinomojo Kareivio kapo [Protest of Concentra- tion at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier], in: XX amžius from 22.03.1938. 208 Įtempimui atslūgstant [With Tension Abating], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.03.1938. 209 Lietuvos sūnūs ir dukterys! [Sons and Daughters of Lithuania!], in: Lietuvos aidas from 24.03.1938.

161 in its work.210 Trying to save its weakening authority, the political regime changed the government – the Mironas Government replaced the Juozas Tūbelis’s Cabinet of Min- isters which resigned on 24 March. At the end of March, Lithuania and Poland exchanged diplomatic missions – Fran- ciszek Charwat arrived in Kaunas and Kazys Škirpa went to Warsaw. Establishing relations with Poland did not mean that the government and Lithuanian society had renounced Vilnius. The political regime avoided speaking about Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius in public, and the rights of Lithuania were declared in a roundabout manner – for example, by publishing extracts from the compositions of pupils of the Kaunas State Secondary School No. 3 in the offi cial newspaper, in which, after the 19th of March, the following was written: “We sincerely believe that Truth will defeat Injus- tice, and we shall not only fail to renounce Vilnius, but will get it back”.211 At the opening festive meeting devoted to the opening the Days of Teachers in Kaunas on the 20th of April (about 1,000 teachers came to participate in these events from all over the country) a representative of the VLU underlined that Vilnius was the capital of the Lith- uanian nation and it was necessary to continue seeking to get it back. After his speech, the teachers sang the anthem of the VLU, which was called “Hey, world, we shall not relent without Vilnius”.212 The adverts that appeared in Lietuvos aidas continued to use the map of Lithuania in which Lithuania was represented, together with Vilnius, with the borders that had been drawn up in the 1920 Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty: in this way the cigarette brand Mano Bičiulis [My Pal] and Harley Davidson motorcycles were advertised too. It is clear that these were small matters because the new Constitution of Lithuania that came into effect on 12 May in Lithuania became the most telling proof whereby the article was kept that declared Vilnius the capital of Lithuania. On the eve of the Constitution coming into force, Lithuania received a diplomatic note from Po- land in which it was underlined that Poland considered Vilnius to be a part of Poland that was recognised by the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors.213 In mid-September of 1938, the VLU sent out a fl yer to its branches in which, underlining that the relations established with Poland did not diminish Lithuania’s aim of “sooner or later making Vilnius the capital of our state”, urged the people to commemorate the 9th of October even more actively, both by expanding upon the propaganda discourse on the liberation of Vilnius by planting the thought in society that it was necessary to continue the Vilnius liberation campaign, and by collecting cash donations for this campaign.214 Approving of this fl yer, the leadership of the VLU districts urged their members to be especially active and take advantage of the opportunity that the 9th

210 23 March 1938, 18 May 1938, 22 May 1938 circuits of VLU Alytus District to branches, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 91, l. 6-8. 211 Kaip mokyklinis jaunimas pergyveno kovo 19 d. [How Schoolchildren Lived Through the 19th of March], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.03.1938. 212 Kaune prasidėjo mokytojų dienos [Teachers’ Days Started in Kaunas], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.04.1938. 213 ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija, p. 268. 214 15 September 1938 circuit of VLU to the VLU Committees of districts and branches, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 91, l. 4.

162 of October fell on a Sunday and that therefore would provide the possibility to engage even broader layers of society.215 With the 9th of October fast approaching, the offi cial newspaper’s editorial underlined that Vilnius was an inseparable part of Lithuania and that the Lithuanian nation could not forget the loss of Vilnius, and the commemoration of that day was a “statement of solidarity for the Lithuanian nation”. However at the same time it was underlined that the commemoration of that date could not be interpreted as hostility against Poland.216 After establishing relations with Poland, it became diffi cult for the political regime to be the fi rst to declare Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius out loud and at every available opportunity. The government wanted to keep its distance from the 9th October commemoration in 1938, and it was more reserved than usual – the public processions and meetings in the Provisional capital were replaced by closed meetings and lectures; however the city observed a minute’s silence as was usually done while commemorating the 9th of October without any instruction “from above”.217 The government reservedly declared that it did not renounce Vilnius, while at the same time demonstrating its distance from those who actively developed and spread the discourse on “Vilnius’s liberation”, trying to present it as a purely civic initiative and the hopes of the nation, the “the voice of the people”. There was no lack of public engagement in the idea of Vilnius – in the press, irrespective of its political orientation, one could fi nd assuranc- es that Lithuania would not renounce Vilnius.218 On this occasion, the oppositional Catholic weekly printed in Panevėžys called the diplomatic relations established with Poland a “friendship with a vampire” and stated that Lithuanians would not renounce Vilnius.219 The pro-government nationalistic organisations commemorated the 9th of October actively. It was like they had all agreed upon their actions beforehand – they invited their members to come to the meetings, conferences, and rallies of the organisations where they talked about the commemoration of the Day of Vilnius rather than their internal organisational issues. Public organisations demonstrated their resolution not to renounce the “liberation of Vilnius” in different ways: the Young Lithuanians of Alytus organised their own rally on the Polish-Lithuanian border (explaining that it was “nearer to Vilnius”) on the issue of Vilnius;220 the rifl emen of Rokiškis organised military exercises that day, imitating a fi ght at Gediminas Castle.221 Though the government did everything to ensure that the 9th of October was commemorated more peacefully

215 19 September 1938 circuit of the VLU’s Alytus District to branches, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 91, l. 3. 216 Spalių devintoji [The 9th of October], in: Lietuvos aidas from 08.10.1938. 217 Vilniaus minėjimas [Vilnius Commemoration], in: XX amžius from 10.10.1938; B. SPRINDYS: Devyniolikta spalių 9-oji [The Nineteenth October the 9th], in: Mūsų Vilnius 20 (1938), p. 332. 218 Spalių 9-ji mūsų spaudoje [The 9th of October in our Press], in: Mūsų Vilnius 20 (1938), pp. 334-335. 219 ALFONSAS SUŠINSKAS: Neužgydoma žaizda [The Unhealed Wound], in: Panevėžio garsas from 08.10.1938. 220 19 September 1938 circuit of the VLU’s Alytus District to the branches, in: LMAVB RS, f. 178, b. 91, l. 3. 221 A. K-LIS: Rokiškis, in: Trimitas 42 (1938), p. 1021.

163 than usual in Lithuania, it was helpless to control people’s frustration, which erupted in hostility against the Poles in some places; for example, on 9-10 October, there were fi ghts between the schoolchildren of a trade school and the pupils of a Polish secondary school.222 By a resolution of the Minister of the Interior of 25 November 1938, the activity of the VLU was terminated. Polish diplomats had been exerting pressure on the government of Lithuania to suspend the activity of this organisation for a long time already. The envoy of Poland in Kaunas, Charwat, complained to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania numerous times about the VLU, which did harm to normalising Lithuanian-Polish relations with its propaganda campaign (the distribution of printed matter, the erection of Vilnius crosses, even the sermons of a propaganda-like nature preached by priest from their pulpits on the theme of Vilnius).223 Having noticed that the public “had suffered painfully” because the activity of the VLU had been terminated, Lietuvos aidas stated that the termination of the union’s activity had been determined by the “higher interests of the state”, which was the price of establishing good relations with Poland.224 Meanwhile the VLU, which suspended its activity, stated that this suspension could be understood as a temporary postponement of solving the issue of Vilnius, as nobody thought “that the Lithuanian nation would ever really renounce its ancient capital”.225 The Rifl emen’s Union tried to somewhat continue the propaganda campaign of the VLU, fi rst and foremost by publishing works on the theme of Vilnius in their publications.226 By suspending the activity of the VLU, the Lithuanian political elite wanted to show that it sought to have good relations with Poland; however, this did not mean that the issue of Vilnius was written off and forgotten. In October 1938, on the eve of the commemoration of the Day of Vilnius, the Chief of the Headquarters of the Lithuanian Armed Forces General Jonas Černius gave the following answer to the reproaches of Military Attache of Poland in Lithuania Leon Mitkiewicz that the Lithuanians had to refuse the anti-Polish rhetoric of the liberation of Vilnius and think about improving the relations with Poland:

222 Neatsakingų gaivalų išsišokimai [Tactless Acts of Irresponsible Elements], in: Mūsų kraštas from 13.10.1938. 223 1st June 1938 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Stasys Lozoraitis about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat; 7th October 1938 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Stasys Lozoraitis about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat; 2 November 1938 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Stasys Lozuraitis about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat, in: KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA, pp. 212-213, 239-241, 256-257. 224 V.A.: Apie pesimizmą ir optimizmą [About Pessimism and Optimism], in: Lietuvos aidas from 29.11.1938; Ministras Pirmininkas aktualiais politikos klausimais [Prime Minister on Urgent Political Issues], in: Mūsų kraštas from 01.12.1938. 225 FABIJONAS KEMĖŠIS: VVS likvidacija ir kas toliau? [Liquidation of VLU and What’s Then?], in: Mūsų Vilnius 23-24 (1938), pp. 369-370. 226 Ko visomis galiomis siekiam – visuomet įvyks [What We Seek for With All Our Might is Always Sure to Happen], in: Trimitas 10 (1940), p. 234.

164 We, Lithuanians, think about Vilnius like a person dear to us that had died. He is no longer among us, and perhaps will never be among us, but nobody will forbid us to respect his memory and remember him. I am also a realist and it is precisely because of that why I think that, regardless of the issue of Vilnius, we still can establish good neighbourly relations.227

A month later, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania Stasys Lozoraitis retorted to the reproach of the envoy of Poland in Kaunas, Charwat, about the commemoration of the Day of Vilnius in Lithuania in a similar way: “the occupation of Vilnius in 1920 is a historical fact, which cannot be crossed out of history. We lost then, and the Poles have Vilnius. We cannot help commemorating this historical date, this mournful date, we cannot help commemorating it as a day of mourning”.228 The Lithuanian political elite tried to improve the relations with Poland, but it was not going to give up Vilnius. After the activity of the VLU had been terminated, the campaign to liberate Vilnius ended but marks of the Vilnius liberation campaign and the memory that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania did not disappear from Lithuania’s landscape. In May 1939, the envoy of Poland reproached representatives of the Lithuanian government that he still saw the slogan “We shall not relent without Vilnius” at the Kaišiadorys Railway Station (on the way not only to Vilnius, but also to Warsaw), and that donation boxes for the VIWF were still located in various shops and institutions as before.229 On 21-28 May 1939, the European Basketball Championship for men was held in Kaunas. The steering committee issued a programme of the Championship with a map of Lithuania with Vilnius and the Vilnius Region were marked as an integral part of the Republic of Lithuania. Poland lodged a protest to the Lithuanian government because of the dissemination of this programme.230 After the activity of the VLU had been suspended, the most effective propaganda campaign of inter-war Lithuania in the 20th century, which was the Vilnius liberation campaign, formally came to an end. Supporting the mobilisation of masses “for the liberation of Vilnius” the authoritarian regime successfully used it to legitimise itself. The Public Work Management (hereinafter referred to as PWM), which was a state propaganda institution founded in 1938, replaced the VLU, becoming engaged in the work of propaganda and mobilising the masses. There is no direct evidence that the PWM, which was the creation of what one could call a “ministry of national propaganda”, was implemented to ﬁ ll the gap that appeared in propaganda after the Vilnius

227 MITKIEWICZ, p. 122. 228 2 November 1938 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Stasys Lozoraitis about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat, in: KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA, pp. 256-257. 229 11 May 1939 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Juozas Urbšys about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat; 1 July 1939 secret pro memoria of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania and acting Foreign Minister Kazimieras Bizauskas about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat, ibidem, pp. 339-340, 353. 230 The 11 May 1939 secret pro memoria of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Juozas Urbšys about a conversation with envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat, ibidem, pp. 339-340.

165 liberation campaign had come to an end. The very idea, however, of creating the PWM occurred after Lithuania had been forced to establish diplomatic relations with Poland, and it was necessary to tone down the clear anti-Polish rhetoric and rhetoric on mobilising the population for the liberation of Vilnius in the political discourse and try to save the deteriorating authority of the government with the help of active means of propaganda. We think that all of this confi rms that the government treated the Vilnius liberation campaign fi rst of all as a propaganda campaign that had to serve the purpose of establishing its legitimacy. After it became necessary “to sacrifi ce almost all the traditions of Vilnius’s liberation at least formally” (this is how the termination of the activity of the VLU was deemed in the discourse of Lithuanian nationalists),231 essentially the only way for Lithuania to remind others of its rights to Vilnius publically was to demonstrate its concern about the Vilnius Lithuanians. In this way, the political regime could demonstrate to Lithuanian society that it had not renounced its goal of getting Vilnius back, and show Poland that their motivation for this concern was taking direct care of the Vilnius Lithuanians as fellow nationals who were residing in the territory of a foreign country. This is why Lietuvos aidas was full of reports about the situation of the Vilnius Lithuanians, fi rst and foremost about the restrictions imposed on the rights of this national minority (true, there was no longer any warlike anti-Polish rhetoric in the writing that one could fi nd earlier), and these reports were grouped together with other reports about life in Lithuania, and separately from the information about the life of Lithua- nians in foreign countries, thus demonstrating that Vilnius was a part of Lithuania and the Lithuanians living there were citizens of Lithuania. Other Lithuanian dailies did the same – the pro-government weekly Mūsų kraštas [Our Country] published news from the Vilnius Region on the fi rst page, which included information from all over Lithua- nia. The attitude toward the Vilnius Lithuanians as citizens of Lithuania determined the fact that the Vilnius Lithuanians, even after diplomatic relations with Poland had been established, did not fi nd themselves in the centre of attention within the Society for Supporting Lithuanians Abroad (SSLA). The mission of the society that was founded in Kaunas was to take care of Lithuanians residing in foreign countries, from Latvia all the way to Brazil. At the same time, the Lithuanian government instructed the Vilnius Lithuanians to adopt the attitude of a national minority, which strictly followed the lim- itations on activities established for national minorities in the laws of Poland, however at the same time they fought resolutely these attempts to restrict their rights.232 The Lithuanian government and Lithuanian public fi gures in Poland sought to at least restore the cultural and education positions of the Lithuanian community in the Vilnius Region to the conditions that preveiled until 1936 when a wave of repressions by the Polish government swept over the Lithuanian community. Both Lithuania and Poland, sought to make use of the establishment of diplomatic relations to strengthen the situation of their national communities, which was the situation of the Polish community in Lithuania and that of the Lithuanian community in Poland. In April 1939, secret negotiations were commenced between diplomats from Lithuania and Poland

231 J. ŽUKANTAS: Tradicinė politika [Traditional Politics], in: Trimitas 11 (1939), p. 247. 232 MAKAUSKAS, pp. 231-232.

166 over the situation of the communities of the national minorities in both countries, which continued until the Second World War. Since anti-Polish moods (in Lithuania) and anti-Lithuanian moods (in Poland) were strong in the societies of both countries, it was decided to normalise the situation of the national minorities gradually. The political elites of the countries found themselves entrapped by stereotypes that they themselves had been making for decades, therefore it was necessary to solve the problems of the national minorities very carefully being afraid of outbursts of discontent on the part of society. The situation of the Lithuanian minority in Poland was to improve gradually, until they were able to recreate their cultural positions that they had held at the beginning of the 1930s.233 There was no quick fundamental improvement in the situation of Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region. In August 1939, Lietuvos aidas noted that the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region encountered bigger obstacles in their cultural activity than their fellow countrymen residing in the USA or Latvia did.234 Apart from the already mentioned reason, the improvement in the freedom for the activities of the Vilnius Lithuanians was impeded by the fears of the Polish government that the activity of the Vilnius Lith- uanians would greatly intensify after complete freedom for their activities was granted. Poland did not want the Lithuanian community in Vilnius to become stronger – this was determined not only by the general assimilation policy of the government with respect to all national minorities on the eastern borderland of the Second Polish Repub- lic. The Polish government understood the attempts by the government in Kaunas to accentuate the rights of Lithuania to Vilnius on the basis of the activity of Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region. Most probably seeking to impede this, there was a ban issued by the Polish administration on the use of the word combination “Vilnius Lithuanians” in the names of Lithuanian organisations.235 It should be added that people in Lithuania themselves saw the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region ﬁ rst of all as direct representatives of Lithuania’s rights to the capital city of Vilnius; for example, a large guided tour for teachers of Lithuanian of the Vilnius Region travelling across the country was welcomed enthusiastically by people in different places of Lithuania in August 1939.236 Guided tours were made in the opposite direction too: after the relations with Poland had been established, excursions started to be organised from Lithuania to the Vilnius Region. Visiting the “Lithuanian” places in Vilnius and a meeting with local Lithua- nians were obligatory parts of the guided tour programmes. The envoy of Poland in Kaunas even reproached Lithuanian diplomats, saying that Lithuanian guided tours to Vilnius turned into “purely political manifesations”, threatening that Warsaw could put a stop to this pilgrimage.237 Meanwhile in Lithuania, the tours to the Vilnius Region were considered desirable, thinking that during these excursions, when they met with

233 Ibidem, pp. 236-244. 234 Svarbus klausimas [Signiﬁ cant Issue], in: Lietuvos aidas from 01.08.1938. 235 MAKAUSKAS, p. 242. 236 VINCAS UŽDAVINYS: Chronicles, in: LMAVB RS, f. 183, b. 676, l. 26-33. 237 1 July 1939 secret pro memoria of the Deputy Prime Minister and acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Kazimieras Bizauskas about the conversation with the envoy of Poland in Kaunas Franciszek Charwat, in: KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA, p. 353.

167 Tour of teachers from the city of Panevėžys to the graves of Lithuanian soldiers in Vilnius. 30.06.1939. PDPL.

Pupils of 4th grade of Panevėžys elementary school No. 1 with their teacher Motiejus Lukšys by the grave of Basanavičius in Rasos cemetery in Vilnius [1939-1940?]. PDPL.

Pupils of Panevėžys elementary school with their teacher Motiejus Lukšys at the Gates of Dawn in Vilnius [1939-1940?]. PDPL.

168 Teachers from Panevėžys city at the Lithuanian Scientific Society Palace – P. Vileišis Palace in Vilnius. 1939. PDPL.

Vilnius “people of Lithuania become sure that there are many sincere Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region, and the residents of the Vilnius Region become stronger in their Lithuanian spirit upon meeting with the residents of free Lithuania”. The only one had to do was to “properly arrange” these tours: one certainly had to visit the places where Lithuanians live, to choose a Lithuanian residing in Vilnius Region as a tour guide. It was not desirable for schoolchildren to visit Vilnius during their holidays because “the city of Vilnius does not have any external marks of Lithuanianness and therefore Lithuania’s schoolchildren (even teachers) form negative impressions of the city of Vilnius, and thus their convictions that have been instilled in them during the course of many years are destroyed”.238 Thus there were fears that if Lithuanian schoolchildren went to Vilnius during their holidays, they would have no opportunity to communicate with Lithuanian pupils from the villages who came to Vilnius to study, and they might not meet other Lithuanians, therefore the image of the Lithuanian Vilnius that had been instilled in them at school might even disappear. After diplomatic relations had been established, more possibilities arose for Lith- uania to directly care for Lithuanians residing in Poland by the help of diplomatic means – this became one of the main objectives of Lithuania’s diplomats in Poland. And the goal to consolidate and coordinate the action of the Vilnius Lithuanians turned into one of the most fundamental incentives that led to the decision of the government of Lithuania to locate the Consulate General of the Republic of Lithuania in Vilnius. The Lithuanian diplomat was to become a shadow leader of the Vilnius Lithuanians, coordinating their political and cultural activities.239 One can agree with the opinion that the very fact of founding the Consulate of Lithuania in Vilnius could have been interpreted as a sign testifying to the fact that Lithuania recognised the actual situation that had formed and renounced its claims to Vilnius.240 The Lithuanian political elite

238 21 July 1939 secret report of the Desk Ofﬁ cer of Tourism Affairs of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania Pranas Barzdžius to the Head of the Press and Society Department, ibidem, pp. 357-359 239 GRIGARAVIČIŪTĖ, Lietuvos konsulato, pp. 262-274. 240 GUMULIAUSKAS, p. 57.

169 had to ponder this nuance; however, it seems there were no discussions concerning this decision, as most likely the fact of establishing the diplomatic relations with Poland that had already taken place seemed more important, following which the founding of the Consulate seemed like a small detail. It’s important to stress that, the main initiator of the founding of the consulate were the Vilnius Lithuanians. Through the consulate, they hoped to secure support for themselves from the Lithuanian government in defending their rights. Lithuania was in no hurry to found the consulate. It was only on 22 August 1939 that the President of Lithuania signed the decree to appoint Antanas Trimakas the General-Consul of Lithuania. Hence, a real step to create a consulate was taken only after it had become clear that the German-Polish war was unavoidable. The Consul himself only appeared in Vilnius and started work on 9 September when the war was already in full swing. False news had even spread about Warsaw being occupied by the Germans on that day. On one hand, Lithuania demonstrated its neutrality to Poland by founding their consulate at such a moment, but on the other hand, in the case Poland collapsed, they were preparing to remind the new owners of the city of Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius.241 Having taken the position of passive neutrality, Lithuania observed the events and waited for the opportunity to remind everyone of its rights to Vilnius. 242

241 The circumstances of appearance of the Lithuanian Consulate are discussed in detail in: GRIGARAVIČIŪTĖ, Lietuvos konsulato, pp. 262-274; IDEM, Lietuvos generalinis, pp. 158-174. 242 For more about it see: KASPARAVIČIUS, Lietuva.

170 V The Recovery of the Capital: 1939-1940

A Return to Vilnius

On the eve of the Second World War, rumours spread in Kaunas about the unavoidable war between Germany and Poland, and that the Germans were pressing the Lithuanians to march on Vilnius, and that they had prepared military assistance for the Lithuanians in Klaipėda.1 These rumours spread after the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union had been signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939. The pact was accompanied by a secret protocol whereby Germany and the Soviet Union divided their spheres of interest in Eastern Europe. Lithuania fell within the German sphere of inﬂ u- ence. It was underlined in the secret protocol that both Germany and the Soviet Union “recognise Lithuania’s interests in the Vilnius Region”.2 When the war broke out, Germany urgently pressed the Lithuanian political and military elite to give up their neutrality and take advantage of the opportunity to take Vilnius back from Poland by force, because later the question of Vilnius belonging to one country or the other would become even trickier.3 The revanchist idea offered by the German diplomats that the Lithuanians could not remain neutral observers of the events, but with the help of Germany they were obligated to organise a triumphant march to Vilnius, had many supporters in Lithuania, for example among the young Nationalists. The then Prime Minister of Lithuania, Černius , stated that “much effort had to be put in” to suppress the revanchist mood and urgings to march on Vilnius.4 The German diplomats’ urging the Lithuanians to “liberate Vilnius” by force ended on 16 September when the German envoy in Lithuania received instructions from Berlin to no longer make references to the issue of Lithuania’s march to Vilnius.5 On 17 September, the Soviet military crossed the eastern borders of Poland, and on 19 September, the Red Army took Vilnius.6 A military invasion of the territory of the neighbouring state was presented by Soviet propaganda as a “march of liberation” of

1 VINCAS UŽDAVINYS: Kronikos [Chronicles], in: LMAVB RS, f. 183, b. 677, l. 35. 2 KASPARAVIČIUS/LAURINAVIČIUS/LEBEDEVA, p. 131. 3 Ibidem, pp. 158-159; MUSTEIKIS, p. 47; RAŠTIKIS, 1990, pp. 591-593; PAULAUSKAS, p. 237. 4 PAULAUSKAS, pp. 237-238. 5 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, p. 23. 6 LIUTSIK, pp. 162-220.

171 the Red Army whereby the subjugated Belarusian, Ukrainian and other nations residing in the eastern voivodships of Poland were being liberated from class and national oppression of the “lords of Poland”. Soviet propaganda explained that by seizing the lands of Poland inhabited by the Belarusians and Ukrainians, it embodied the lawful aim of these people to join their fellow countrymen in the Soviet republics of Belarus and Ukraine.7 The political elite of Soviet Belarus did not doubt that Vilnius would soon become a part of Soviet Belarus (they did not know about the contents of the secret protocol of the treaty between the Soviet Union and Germany). On the eve of Soviet military aggression, Minsk saw Vilnius as an unoffi cial capital of what was referred to as Western Belarus, and a list was drawn up of the Belarusian activists in Vilnius that were planned to be repressed. The Soviet activists sent to Vilnius began preparing Western Belarus for its incorporation into the Soviet Union, however a would-be “referendum” of the inhabitants called the National Meeting of Western Belarus needed to be convened in Vilnius, which was to create the appearance of a voluntary joining and lend legitimacy to the event. The Soviet authorities granted Belarusian the status of an offi cial language in Vilnius and began publishing a newspaper in Belarusian. Mink spared a lot of efforts in trying to win over infl uential Belarusian political and cultural workers in Vilnius to their side by their talks about the unlimited possibilities opening up for fostering Belarusian culture in a “united” Belarus with Minsk and Vilnius. The demonstrative steps by the Soviet authorities, which were essentially only propaganda, had such an effect on Vilnius’s Belarusian public fi gures that rumours spread among them that the capital of Belarus was going to be moved from Minsk to Vilnius. These rumours corresponded to the expectations of Vilnius’s Belarusian activists who regarded Vilnius as a historical centre of Belarusian culture and the national movement.8 Most probably the fact that the issue of moving the capital of Belarus was really discussed gave fuel to the rumours about moving the capital to Vilnius: in the spring of 1938, a decision was made to move the capital of Belarus from Minsk to Mogiliov, but that was to happen in November 1939.9 Both the practical steps taken by the Belarusian Soviet elite and the enthusiasm of Vilnius’s Belarusian activists concerning the fact that soon Vilnius would become a city belonging to Belarus or perhaps even its political centre, was based on ignorance – the leaders of Soviet Belarus did not know that plans had been made to give Vilnius back to Lithuania.10 Moscow turned the enthusiasm of the Belarusians about Vilnius that resulted from their ignorance into a tool of pressure on the Lithuanians, who sought to regain Vilnius. The logic that followed was that with the real possibility of giving Vilnius over to Belarus being demonstrated, the Lithuanian political elite was to become more compliant during negotiations concerning the handing over of Vilnius to Lithuania.11

7 LADYSEU, pp. 52-53. 8 IVANOU, Prablema, pp. 32-38; IDEM, Sprawa, pp. 85-92; SHYBEKA, p. 307; BOĆKOWSKI, pp. 7-17. 9 KHOMICH, p. 294. 10 IVANOU, Prablema, p. 36. 11 BOĆKOWSKI, p.13.

172 As soon as the news reached Lithuania that Vilnius was in the hands of the Red Army, Lithuania’s envoy in Moscow, Ladas Natkevičius , was obligated to remind the government of the Soviet Union of Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius.12 On 19 September, Lithuania’s envoy was told that “the problem of Vilnius will be resolved in a way favourable to Lithuania, however during the current turmoil it was necessary to wait”.13 Lithuania received an invitation to talks on 29 September after the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty had been signed in Moscow on 28 September. The secret protocol of that treaty corrected the earlier German-Soviet agreement, and Lith- uania was assigned to the sphere of Soviet infl uence. The negotiations between Lithuania and the Soviet Union took place on 3-10 Octo- ber in Moscow. During the fi rst stage of the negotiations, the Soviet Union submitted two draft treaties to Lithuania. The fi rst project regulated the handing over of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region to Lithuania, while the second one was Soviet-Lithuanian Mu- tual Assistance Treaty, which granted the right to the Soviet Union to establish military bases in the territory of Lithuania. Later, during the negotiations, seeking to exert pressure on Lithuania, the Soviet diplomats joined two draft treaties into one, thus the Trea- ty on Mutual Assistance and the Transfer of the Vilnius Region to Lithuania was born. In this way the condition set to Lithuania was accentuated even more clearly – if the latter wanted to get Vilnius back, it had to allow Soviet military bases to be established in Lithuania. The Lithuanian political elite understood very well that the establishment of Soviet military bases was a prelude to Lithuania being occupied (the number of those in the Red Army contingent they planned to base in Lithuania exceeded the size of the Lithuanian Army). Lithuania tried to avoid the establishment of Soviet bases in its country; however, it was unable to resist pressure exerted by the Soviet Union. On 10 October, Lithuania signed the Treaty on Mutual Assistance and the Transfer of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region to Lithuania in Moscow, which was ratifi ed by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 14 October. Lithuania was given Vilnius in exchange for permission to deploy a Soviet Army contingent in its territory.14 During the negotiations, the Soviet Union put pressure on Lithuania about a possible transfer of Vilnius to Soviet Belarus. As if taking a signal from Moscow, on 7 October there were meetings held in Soviet-held Vilnius, where meeting participants expressed a desire for Vilnius and the Vilnius Region to be annexed to Soviet Belarus as soon as possible.15 The People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Viacheslav Molotov , urging the Lithuanians to accept the terms and conditions of the Treaty as soon as possible, drew the attention of Juozas Urbšys, the head of the Lith- uanian diplomatic corps, to the reports in newspapers published in Moscow about the meetings in Vilnius, and added that “the government of the Soviet Union will not be able to calm the working people of Vilnius for long and ignore their demands”.16 And

12 Minutes of the sitting of the Council of Ministers of Lithuania of 19 September 1939, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1080, l. 172. 13 KASPARAVIČIUS/LAURINAVIČIUS/LEBEDEVA, pp. 181-182. 14 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 31-39. 15 Ibidem, p. 28. 16 URBŠYS, p. 74.

173 Cartoon depicts a plane returning from Moscow to Kaunas (after signing the treaty of mutual assistance of Lithuania – the Soviet Union for the transfer of Vilnius and the Vilnius region to the Republic of Lithuania) with Lithuanian Foreign Affairs Minis- ter Juozas Urbšys with the tower of the Gediminas Castle in his hands. Below the cartoon: “For- eign Affairs Minister Urbšys with gifts brought from his uncle”. Kuntaplis, 1939, no. 42 prior to that Stalin spoke about the possible claims of the Belarusians to Vilnius, providing a reminder that Lit-Bel (the Lithuanian–Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic) was created only because Belarusian Bolsheviks demanded to have Vilnius.17 Soviet diplomats used the scenario of a Belarusian Vilnius as a means of pressure – the activists of Soviet Belarus in Minsk and in Vilnius did not know this. When the news reached them that the treaty had been signed in Moscow and according to it, Vilnius had been given to Lithuania, they were in shock.18 Meantime the news about the capital being recovered sparked a wave of mass euphoria in Lithuania, which the diplomat Savickis called a “wedding mood” in his diary.19 The future literary critic Alfonsas Nyka-Niliūnas , who was just a student at the time, made the following entry in his diary on 11 October 1939:

At last (from yesterday) Vilnius is ours! Yes! Ours! While walking along the street in a noisy crowd of students I was thinking: that constant pain that was everywhere, that followed me from my childhood has gone, suddenly that permanent painful wound that poisoned my life and because of which I felt offended all the time has healed. Only now am I completely free.

Somewhat later he made another entry in his diary:

Vilnius is still on everyone’s lips. This is as though it’s the ﬁ nal end of liberation. Consu- matum est! Some people remind us with anxiety of the following: Vilnius is Vilnius, but it was received from the Bolsheviks. Though that could be a real threat, I do not want to know

17 KASPARAVIČIUS/LAURINAVIČIUS/LEBEDEVA, p. 234. 18 KHOMICH, pp. 303-305. 19 SAVICKIS, Raštai, vol. 4, p. 98.

174 anything about it, I do not want to think about it, I only want to rejoice – on my own, everywhere and with everybody else.20

At the same time historian Zenonas Ivinskis called the recovery of Vilnius a fatal joy, and on 29 October he wrote the following:

It seems to be the third Sunday already that priests of the Žaliakalnis parish [...] are speaking about the miraculous recovery of Vilnius during the sermon. [...] Incredible joy! Heaven forbid that we continue to do well and that we would not only lose Vilnius but also see hard times for our Motherland. Because after all it could happen like this: the Soviets give Vilnius back to us and take all of Lithuania for themselves. Even today it seemed to me that something tragic was hidden behind all that joy, all those numerous speeches made according to the same pattern.21

At that time, Römeris wrote a prophetic entry in his diary:

Today the Lithuanians of Kaunas were so seized by the enthusiasm of Vilnius that it was like they were intoxicated. But that spontaneous joy is shallow and it is sure to subside after the entire treaty had been soberly assessed, which essentially liquidates independence [...] There is neither a sense of sincere and global joy nor deep satisfaction, only an overwhelming wor- ry. We are laughing through the tears.22

Thoughts like his were more the exception. Anxiety dimmed the joy of those with greater insight. It was not political short-sightedness or a heady joy that hindered calling this anxiety a looming threat – Savickis also rejoiced in the recovery of Vilnius, who at the beginning of the Second World War stated that the proposal of the Soviet Union or Germany to give back Vilnius would be merely a “temptation to subjugate the whole of Lithuania”.23 The reason was hidden in the image of Lithuania they had adopted, which became worthless without its capital Vilnius. We think that this could account for the fact why another diplomat, who was Savickis’ colleague, stated in those days that if Vilnius and Klaipėda belonged to Lithuania, he would love Lithuania even though the Bolsheviks lived there.24 The fears about the threat posed by the Soviet Union was paradoxically intertwined with the belief that the might of the Soviet Union would guarantee the Lithuanians’ rights to Vilnius irrespective of how the war that had started would end.25 The Polish government in exile did not recognise the Polish-Soviet Agreement, thereby Vilnius was returned to Lithuania. On 13 October, the Polish envoy in Kaunas Charwat submitted a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressing protest against

20 NYKA-NILIŪNAS, p. 26. 21 ZENONAS IVINSKIS: Dienoraštis [Diary], in: LNMMB RS, f. 29, b. 14/2, l. 349-350. 22 RÖMERIS, “Dienoraščio”, p. 64. 23 SAVICKIS, Raštai, vol. 4, p. 68. 24 Ibidem, p. 107. 25 KASPERAVIČIUS, Polacy, p. 155.

175 Marching to Vilnius Lithuanian troops cut the border barrier of Lithuania – Poland. NML the unlawful taking over of the city of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region from the Soviet Union. The envoy soon received Lithuania’s answer that the city of Vilnius and the Vilnius region were an inseparable part of Lithuania, and that Poland had ruled that territory from 1920 as an occupier. On 16 October, the Polish envoy demonstratively left Lithuania – which meant the suspension of diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland.26 The circumstances under which Lithuania regained Vilnius were very complex, though the most authoritative Lithuanian specialist on international law at the time, Römeris, argued that Lithuania “in recovering its capital [...] in a friendly way from the country under whose actual rule it found itself” did not violate any laws of the territorial sovereignty of Poland (because from Lithuania’s point of view Poland had never gained any rights to its capital) and Lithuania preserved neutrality with respect to Poland, adding that the more serious problems were within the country, saying that “apart from technical problems, there will still be important and deep psychological problems, which might be the most difﬁ cult ones”.27 On 28 October, the Lithuanian Army marched into Vilnius. On the eve of the Lith- uanian Army’s march into Vilnius, neither the Lithuanian government nor the military leadership had any illusions that all the residents of the city would meet the Lithuanian

26 TARKA, Konfrontacja, pp. 19-20. 27 MYKOLAS ROEMERIS: Vilnius ir tarptautinė teisė [Vilnius and International Law], in: Naujoji Romuva 42-43 (1939), pp. 749-750.

176 Lithuanian army marching through the gates of honor in Vilnius. On the gate the slogan: “The Resi- dents of Vilnius Welcome the Army of Lithuania!” 28.10.1939. NML

Chairman of the Vilnius Tempo- rary Committee of Lithuanians K. Stašys welcomes the Division General V. Vitkauskas having marched into Vilnius. 28.10.1939. NML

177 The first watch of Lithuanian soldiers at the tower of Gediminas Castle. 28.10.1939. NML

The Raising of the Lithuanian flag at the tower of Gediminas Castle. 28.10.1939. NML

178 troops with ﬂ owers. On the contrary, they were getting ready for the worst – for a possible armed clash with the Polish units that had not been trounced by the Red Army yet or with Polish partisans.28 The march went off smoothly. The Vilnius Lithuanians saw to it that the Lithuanian Army was welcomed warmly and in a manner of celebration. The representatives of the Belarusian, Jewish, and Tartar communities greeted the new masters of the city at a meeting; Bolesław Szyszkowski congratulated the army on behalf of the Poles underlying that he congratulated it only on behalf of the krajowcy rather than on behalf of all Poles.29 The Poles residing in Vilnius met the Lithuanian Army that had marched into the city with great interest rather than hostility. The Poles of the Vilnius Region treated the Lithuanians as the temporary master of the city – the conviction prevailed if not that autumn, then next spring France, together with England, would trounce Nazi Germany, and Poland’s statehood would be restored, and Vilnius would once again become a Polish city.30

The Policy of Lithuanianisation

After recovering Vilnius, the following could be heard in Lithuania: “A new fi ght is starting, a fi ght for the Lithuanian capital”.31 This statement refl ected Lithuania’s strategic line of action in the city of Vilnius, the goal that Vilnius would be turned from a provincial Polish city into the real capital of Lithuania with ethnic Lithuanians dominating in its streets. It was diffi cult to turn Vilnius into a Lithuanian city in an ethno-linguistic sense due to the demographical situation of the Vilnius Region, which greatly differed from the general situation in Lithuania where the Lithuanian nation accounted for more than 80 per cent of the country’s population. As a comparison, the territory of the Vilnius Re- gion that had been given over to Lithuania, according to historian Regina Žepkaitė , (the data of the offi cial 1937 census was taken as a basis) had 457,000 inhabitants, including 209,000 residing in Vilnius. Residents with Polish nationality in the Vilnius Region accounted for 39.37 per cent, the number of Jews constituted 34.16 per cent, and that of the Lithuanians was equal to 19.23 per cent. In the autumn of 1939, the consequences of war (military mobilisation, war refugees etc.) corrected this statistics. For example, a total of 25,000 war refugees were registered in the Vilnius Region as of 13 January 1940.32 We have already mentioned that it is diffi cult to determine the national composition of the residents in the city of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region. One thing is clear: Lithuanians constituted the minority in the region, and their number in Vilnius itself

28 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 42-43. 29 Šiandien Gedimino kalne iškilmingai iškeliama Lietuvos vėliava [Today the Flag of Lithua- nia is Festively Hoisted on Gediminas Hill], in: Lietuvos aidas from 29.10.1939. 30 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 65-67; LEWANDOWSKA, p. 32. 31 BRONYS RAILA: Kova už lietuvišką sostinę [A Fight for the Lithuanian Capital], in: Vairas 44 (1939), p. 868. 32 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 49-50, 110.

179 Cartoon depicting the difficulties of the Government Representative in the Vilnius region in the fall of 1939 caring for the transfer of the capital from Kaunas to Vilnius. Kuntaplis, 1939, no. 46 was especially small. Different sources and researchers present their number ranging from 1,400 to 7,000.33 Furthermore, the Vilnius Region had become an integral part of another country and had acquired its speciﬁ c problems a long time ago. In the autumn of 1939, social and economic consequences determined by the war added to that, and they were made much more severe by Sovietisation that lasted more than a month when the country was under the Red Army. It was complicated to turn this territory into an organic part of the Lithuanian state by a single, resolute administrative decision, therefore a separate administrative unit was formed for the transitional integration stage, and the Institute of the Commissioner of the Government of Lithuania for the City of Vilnius and the Vil- nius Region was formed to head it. This Institute had to prepare Vilnius for taking over the role of the capital from Kaunas. The authorities followed the principle that prior to concentrating the political and administrative forces of the country in Vilnius, it was necessary to prepare for it adequately. Meanwhile Lithuanian society was impatient and tried to hasten the transfer of state institutions to Vilnius.34 In the autumn of 1939, the Lithuanian elite, which could not avoid a euphoric mood, fully realised that Vilnius was not only the regained historical capital, but also an unex- pectedly large heap of knotty problems. The government’s newspaper wrote: “Having

33 Drugi, Województwo Wileńskie, p. 13; Drugi, Miasto Wilno, p. 11; JANUSZEWSKA-JURKIE- WICZ, p. 495; BIELIAUSKAS, p. 346. 34 VLADAS JAKUBĖNAS: Mūsų santykiai su lenkais [Our Relations with the Poles], in: Naujoji Romuva 46 (1939), p. 883; R.M.: Vilniuje gyveno kunigaikščiai ir karaliai [Dukes and Kings Lived in Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 06.02.1940.

180 regained the Vilnius Region, we regained what belonged to us by the national, cultural, historical and economic right. Besides that, however, we have put a heavy burden on our shoulders”.35 The Polish community was seen as the primary problem on the way to assuring dominance of the Lithuanians in Vilnius – not so much due to its national dominance, but due to its potential disloyalty to the government of Lithuania. A warning was heard in the Lithuanian press that “the Poles of Vilnius will not lose ground without a fi ght”.36 It did not take long for Lithuanian and Polish Nationalisms to clash in Vilnius. Pol- ish Nationalism enjoyed the support of the local Polish residents who were convinced that Lithuania was ruling Vilnius temporarily, therefore it had no right to introduce its own order there because post-war Poland would in no way agree to renounce Vilnius. The Lithuanians were treated as occupiers. When on 29 October Vilnius’s attachment to Lithuania was festively commemorated and the Lithuanian three-colour fl ag was hoisted above Gediminas Tower, unrest among Polish youth erupted in Vilnius, which the Lithuanian police had to suppress. On 31 October – 2 November, disturbances broke out in full strength. Mass disturbances expressing discontent with the Lithuanian government were accompanied by anti-Jewish pogroms. The government squelched the unrest by force.37 After 2 November, there were no mass disturbances; however, there were individual cases of disobedience or sabotage campaigns that occurred. The political situation in Vilnius was tense right until the loss of Lithuania’s independence in the summer of 1940, fi rst due to the nationalistic Polish underground seeking to restore Poland to its former borders. In the autumn of 1939, about 40 organisations, which in essence represented all the political organisations functioning in the Polish state, operated in the Polish underground formed in the Vilnius Region. Former offi cers, the youth, and even the clergy became actively involved in the activities of these underground organisations. The Polish Government-In-Exile issued an instruction that organisations of an exclusively political rather than military nature should be created in the underground operating in the territory of Lithuania, that no sabotage campaigns and subversive activities should be carried out, that good relations with the Lithuanians should be maintained, and that a basis for an agreement should be sought, underlining that the question of Vilnius belonging to one or the other country was open. The underground of Vilnius’s Poles accepted these instructions issued by the government-in-exile unwillingly – in essence it obeyed the requirements to not carry out an active resistance campaign, however, the idea that it could be possible to discuss the question of Vilnius belonging to either country was actually unacceptable for the Polish underground (this is how the statement of the Government in exile that the question of who Vilnius belonged to was open was understood).38

35 Artimiausi ūkiniai uždaviniai Vilniaus krašte [Immediate Economic Goals in the Vilnius Region], in: Lietuvos aidas from 11.10.1939. 36 VLADAS JAKUBĖNAS: Mūsų santykiai su lenkais Vilnių atgavus [Our Relations with the Poles after the Recovery of Vilnius], in: Naujoji Romuva 46 (1939), p. 822. 37 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 66-74; LIEKIS, 1939, pp. 265-270. 38 WOŁKONOWSKI; TARKA, Konfrontacja; IDEM, Komendant; ROMAN, Działalność; IDEM, Kon- spiracja; WILANOWSKI; TOMASZEWSKI.

181 Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania Antanas Merkys unveils a plaque on the house at Pilies St. 26 in Vilnius, where on 16.02.1918, the State Council of Lithuania signed the Act of Indepen- dence of Lithuania. 16.02.1940. LCSA

182 In interwar Lithuania, all attention was centred on implanting the idea of Vilnius in the public and raising the question of Vilnius at the international level. It seems, however, that nobody thought in earnest what should be done if Lithuania regained Vilnius someday, in other words, there was no preliminary action plan. Prime Minister Antanas Merkys, who was the fi rst Representative of the Government for the Vilnius Region, admitted at the beginning of 1940 that the government’s full attention after the loss of Vilnius in the autumn of 1920 was focused exclusively on diplomatic steps, therefore the reality of life of the Vilnius Region lacked attention and he stated reservedly the following: “When we arrived in Vilnius we had to act somewhat perfunctorily”.39 The Lithuanian government had only one clear strategic goal, which was to Lithuanianise the capital, assuring dominance of the Lithuanian nation in the city both in a political and cultural sense. The Lithuanian political and cultural elite approved of this strategy unanimously. In 1921, when considering the Hymans project, Lithuania’s politicians themselves, taking into consideration its multiethnic nature, were already prepared to offer autonomy to the Vilnius Region within Lithuania; however, after the Lithuanian armed forces marched into Vilnius in 1939, the possibility of autonomy of the Vilnius Region was not mentioned. Lithuanian politicians announced that with Vilnius being “the heart of Lithuania and Lithuanianism” one could not even imagine that it could turn into “some island” separated from Lithuania.40 According to historian Česlovas Laurinavičius , the authorities of Lithuania could not grant autonomy to the Vilnius Region on account of internal and external reasons. Lithuanian society, which considered Vilnius to be an inseparable part of Lithuania, would have not supported such a step inside the country. Furthermore, granting autonomy to the Vilnius Region would have meant the recognition of the dominance of the Poles in that region. And neither Germany nor the Soviet Union would have tolerated the creation of Polish Piedmont in Lithuania.41 While the Lithuanian elite unanimously agreed on the strategic goal to turn Vil- nius into a Lithuanian city and ensuring the dominance of the Lithuanian nation, the opinions about the tactical steps differed, and camps of the supporters of moderate and radical Lithuanianisation formed. The intellectuals that gathered around the magazine Naujoji Romuva [The New Romuva] most clearly represented the camp of the supporters of moderate Lithuanianisation. They urged the authorities not to repeat the mistakes made in the autumn of 1920 (when Vilnius was in the hands of Lithuanians) and not to speed up the Lithuanianisation of the city by refusing the idea “that it is possible to re-nationalise a person with a single order” or with the help of the threat of repressions. They proposed to the local population to show tolerance, to carry out a policy for employing staff carefully by appointing only those persons to the position of offi cials who understood the specifi city of the regained capital. A broad and radical agricultural reform was to be implemented in the Vilnius Region, thereby attracting great numbers of peasants, and by no means were they “to insult and humiliate people only because

39 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, p. 98. 40 VINCAS VILEIŠIS: Gyvenimą su Vilnium pradedant [Starting Life with Vilnius], in: Vairas 41 (1939), p. 816. 41 LAURINAVIČIUS, Litewska, p. 40.

183 they speak Belarusian or Polish”, arguing that “the majority of them are Lithuanians, and it was only due to historical circumstances that they became Polonised or Belaru- sianised”. This magazine made attempts to persuade the people that the latter had to be given time and create the possibility for them “to freely and calmly decide and fi nd their true nationality”42. Meanwhile the supporters of radical Lithuanianisation, who were most clearly represented by the younger generation of Nationalists, who rallied around the magazine of the Nationalist Party Vairas, were more fi rmly resolute with respect to the question of Vilnius. Hardly a month had passed of the Lithuanian government being in power in Vilnius, and the young Nationalists burst out with reproaches in the press that osten- sibly the Lithuanian administration had showed too much tolerance towards the manifestations of Polish Nationalism in Vilnius and implemented Lithuanianisation in the capital too moderately.43 Urgent measures were demanded to be taken so that “the face of Vilnius, as Lithuania’s capital, should become Lithuanian. It was underlined that no one was going to fi ght against the national minorities, their language and culture “but the capital of the state must have a clear national, i.e. Lithuanian face” having named that as the most important issue to Lithuanians.44 The supporters of moderate and radical Lithuanianisation followed the principle that a part of the residents of the Vilnius Region had lost “their clear national identity”, had turned into who were referred to as Tuteišiai [the locals] who spoke Polish; however, no doubts arose to the Lithuanian nation about their “racial belonging” to the Lithuanian nation – the Vilnius Region was regarded simply as “a Polonised region of Lithuanians”.45 Nobody in Lithuanian society questioned the attitude that all the Catho- lic residents of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region were Polonised Lithuanian Catholics, at least in public.46 However, the attitude of the two camps differed as to the possibility to turn the Polish-speaking inhabitants of the Vilnius Region into loyal citizens of the Lithuanian state. The supporters of moderate Lithuanianisation urged Lithuanians to not treat the Poles residing in Vilnius as an integral national mass but to differentiate them according to the potential possibilities for them to become loyal citizens of the Lithuanian state.

42 IGNAS ŠEINIUS: Vilniaus politika [Vilnius’ Policy], in: Naujoji Romuva 42-43 (1939), pp. 751- 752; J. KOSSU-ALEKSANDRAVIČIUS [JONAS AISTIS], ibidem, pp. 753-754; MYKOLAS ROEMER- IS: Vilnius ir tarptautinė teisė [Vilnius and International Law], ibidem, pp. 749-750; JUOZAS KELIUOTIS: Vilnius ir reformos [Vilnius and Reforms], ibidem, p. 780; IGNAS ŠEINIUS: Nei nenorėta papeikti suvalkiečių [The Suduvites Were not Meant to be Reprimanded], ibidem 44 (1939), p. 792. 43 VINCAS RASTENIS: Tolerancija Vilniuje [Tolerance in Vilnius], in: Vairas 44 (1939), pp. 865- 868; BRONYS RAILA: Kova už lietuvišką sostinę [A Fight for the Lithuanian Capital], ibidem, pp. 868-870. 44 VYTAUTAS A LANTAS: Vilniaus veidas iš arti [The Face of Vilnius Close-up], ibidem 43 (1939), p. 849. 45 VINCAS VILEIŠIS: Gyvenimą su Vilnium pradedant [Starting Life with Vilnius], ibidem 41 (1939), p. 815; VLADAS JAKUBĖNAS: Mūsų santykiai su lenkais Vilnių atgavus [Our Relations with the Poles after the Recovery of Vilnius], in: Naujoji Romuva 46 (1939), p. 822. 46 KASPERAVIČIUS, Polacy, p.156.

184 A suggestion was made to divide the Poles of the Vilnius Region into groups: a group of war refugees, the so-called “newcomers” and “colonists” (those who moved to the Vilnius Region after 9 October 1920) and the local Polish residents. It was not believed that war refugees and the “newcomers” could become loyal citizens of Lithuania. In fact, the attitude to the war refugees and the “newcomers” was also diverse: if the war refugees in the eyes of Lithuanian public ﬁ gures were human ballast that appeared as a result of the war and was useless and hostile to the national Lithuanian state, the Polish “newcomers” who were settled in Vilnius were treated as the elements most disloyal to Lithuania, accusing them of having participated in the processes of turning the Vilnius Region into an integral part of the Polish state. Therefore the authorities were offered the following tactics with respect to the Poles: “to isolate the refugees and the newcomers and to talk to the locals”. It should be noted that they doubted the loyalty of a large part of the local Poles. All of their hopes were associated with Vilnius’s workers, craftsmen, and peasants whose personal wellbeing was not related to the political regime, and it seemed that they could be won over to the side of the authorities by means of economic, social, church and educational policy.47 In essence the supporters of radical Lithuanianisation did not believe in the loyalty of the Polish-speaking residents of Vilnius. The latter did not see the essential differ- ence between the local Poles and the “newcomers” stating that the aspirations of the latter were the same – the restoration of Poland with Vilnius. They did not believe in the possibility of winning over the afore-mentioned “locals” to their side who perhaps “are of Lithuanian blood” too, but they spoke Polish and “are alien to the State of Lithuania and the Lithuanian nation”.48

National Minorities and the “Newcomers”

The government, seeking to practically implement the idea of Vilnius as a Lithuanian city, tried to be somewhere in the middle – between the supporters of the camps of radical and moderate Lithuanianisation. The ﬁ rst appeal of the Representative of the Government of Lithuania to the residents of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region underlined that the autochthonous residents were full-ﬂ edged citizens of Lithuania, the authorities promised to respect the rights of the national minorities, to try to solve labour and social problems, and in exchange demanded unconditional loyalty from the residents.49 The Lithuanian government really tried to do their best to block the way to appearance of any national strife and potential tensions. For example, fearing that the grave of Piłsud- ski’s mother and Piłsudski’s heart in Rasos Cemetery in Vilnius, which had become a

47 Lietuvių – lenkų santykių problema [Problem of Lithuanian-Polish Relations], in: Naujoji Romuva 18-19 (1940), pp. 365-370. 48 VYTAUTAS ALANTAS: Vilniaus veidas iš arti [The Face of Vilnius Close-up], in: Vairas 43 (1939), pp. 848-850; ALGIRDAS VALIUKĖNAS: Ar esame lenkų mažumos atžvilgiu nuoseklūs? [Are We Consistent with Respect to the Polish Minority?], ibidem 3 (1940), p. 212. 49 ANTANAS MERKYS: Į Vilniaus miesto ir srities gyventojus [To the Residents of the City and Region of Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 07.11.1939.

185 Polish national symbol, might become the target of indignant residents and possible provocations, guards were put at his grave (as well as at the grave of Basanavičius ) trying to present this as proof of their tolerance toward Polish minority.50 However, a month later the demand to replace the guards at Piłsudski’s grave with an on-duty police offi cial appeared in the offi cial newspaper, explaining that it was a duty to protect the grave against profanation, but that it was not fi tting to show respect “for the greatest offender of Lithuania”.51 In the autumn of 1939, after Lithuania had regained the Vilnius Region, Belarusian public fi gures hoped that the Lithuanian government would demonstrate exceptional favour toward the Belarusian minority – similar to that shown to Vilnius’s Lithuanians. This attitude was based on the experience of common national oppression and resistance of the Lithuanians and Belarusians under Polish rule and the attention shown to the problem of the national rights of Belarusians in the Vilnius region in the propaganda discourse on the liberation of Vilnius. However after the Lithuanian government became established in Vilnius, they did not demonstrate any kind of protectionism-like policies with respect to the Belarusians; psychologically the representatives of the authorities treated the Belarusians in a more favourable way than the Poles, but nobody was going to grant exclusive rights to the Belarusian community. Having lost patience, in 1940 the representatives of the Centre for the Activity of Belarusians in Lithuania, pointing to the fact that the Belarusians, together with the Lithuanians, “unanimously fought against the Russians and Poles”, and reminding them that Vilnius had been the historical “centre of co-existence” of the Belarusians and Lithuanians since the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, started asking the Lithuanian government to actively support the Belarusian community in the Vilnius Region: to promote education in Bela- rusian, to take care of the rights of the Belarusians in churches of different confessions, to solve the issues of acquiring Belarusian citizenship and other social issues. The Bela- rusian public fi gures noted that the Belarusians felt loyalty towards the Lithuanian state but that if the Lithuanian authorities wanted to assure this loyalty for a long time, they had to demonstrate their favour toward the Belarusian community by taking practical steps. The appeal underlined that ignoring the Belarusian problem was harmful to Lith- uania’s interests, because the refusal to take care of the rights of the Belarusian national minority might “push” the nationally ignorant members of the community “into the arms of the Poles or Russians” and the Poles were already taking advantage of this by Polonising the Belarusians in educational institutions and the Church.52 In exchange for the loyalty of the Belarusian community, the Belarusian activists in Vilnius demanded that Lithuania should take steps, which would strengthen the position of the Belarusian community and even help develop the Belarusian identity in the Vilnius Region. This memorandum of the Belarusian activists did not receive a response. The Lith- uanians needed an ally in Vilnius; however, the Lithuanian political elite was not at-

50 Istorinės valandos Vilniuje [Historical Hours in Vilnius], in: Lietuvos aidas from 30.10.1939. 51 JULIUS SMETONA: Ką jaučia lietuvis Vilniuje [What a Lithuanian Feels in Vilnius], in: Lietu- vos aidas from 09.11.1939. 52 Memorandum of the Centre for the Activity of Belarusians in Lithuania to the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lithuania, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1373a, l. 1-5.

186 tracted by the perspective to strengthen Lithuania’s positions in Vilnius by supporting an ally that could become its rival. There was one important thing with respect to the Belarusians – the Belarusian activists themselves admitted the liability of Belarusian identity in the Vilnius Region and the fact that “there was a large part of Polonised and ethnically Lithuanian elements” among the Belarusians.53 The Lithuanian political elite most probably reasoned as follows: why support and encourage the development of the Belarusian identity in the Vilnius Region if the local Belarusians who did not clearly declare their Belarusian identity and hesitated about the issue of their identity, could be “returned to the nation”, i.e., turned into Lithuanians. President Smetona stated the following: “There are many people in the Vilnius Region who call themselves locals, speak both Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian and are not quite decided yet on their nationality, though they without doubt are of Lithuanian origin”, therefore, according to him, it would be a crime against our nation if no efforts were made to revive the Lithuanian identity of the “locals”.54 Complaining that the Lithuanian government “are leaving the problem of the Be- larusians aside, do not name it, and perhaps no longer consider it to be a problem” the Belarusian activists stated, as they saw it, an obvious paradox in the city of Vilnius – the Lithuanian politicians in the city of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region “take into consideration only the Poles, which they regard as a large and exclusively oppositional force”.55 The Lithuanian political elite found the Poles a serious problem indeed. Firstly, the Pol- ish community had dominating positions in all spheres of political, cultural and social life, and the community itself was well organised; during the fi rst days of the rule of the Lithuanian government in Vilnius, an agency was formed of different Polish political parties and movements that was called the Polish Committee, headed by the lawyer and social activist Bronisław Krzyżanowski. The Polish Committee claimed to become an offi cial institution representing Polish society. The Lithuanian government disagreed with the goals of the Polish Committee, but tolerated the latter as an unoffi cial agency – on 6 November the representatives of the Committee were received by the Represent- ative of the Government for the Vilnius Region, Antanas Merkys .56 If Vilnius’s Poles further considered themselves to be a titular nation, in the eyes of the Lithuanians they were just a national minority in the Lithuanian state. The Lithuanian authorities underlined that the Poles residing in the Vilnius Region, from a political point of view, were only a national minority of Lithuania that “has no any special autonomous privileges” and could not be treated by the authorities “as a certain partner” therefore there would be no any debates with the Poles in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius. The rights of the

53 Ibidem. 54 Respublikos Prezidento Antano Smetonos kalba Šaulių Sąjungos susirinkime [Speech of President of the Republic Antanas Smetona at the Meeting of the Riﬂ emen Union], in: Trim- itas 10 (1940), pp. 227-228. 55 Memorandum of the Centre for the Activity of Belarusians in Lithuania to the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lithuania, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1373a, l. 1-5. 56 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 72-73.

187 Poles, as a national minority, however, would be respected if this minority were loyal and would not cherish any plans to turn Vilnius into a part of Poland.57 The Polish Committee became a representative of Polish society and a defender of its interests; however, this did not mean that the Lithuanian government listened to its opinion. Members of the Committee were constantly complaining that the Represent- ative of the Government for Vilnius and other bodies of the Lithuanian government did not want to communicate with them, disregarded their opinion, did not include them in governance, and acted “using only police measures”. At the same time the Polish activists argued that it would be possible to solve many problems more effectively if they were included in the governance of Vilnius. They even tried to persuade the government that it was only the Polish activists who, by their authority, prevented manifestations of discontent from Polish society. They argued that the Lithuanians in the Vilnius Region would never become established if the policy of resolute Lithua- nianisation continued to be pursued.58 As earlier, the conviction that in one or another way Lithuania would only rule Vilnius temporarily, at most until the end of the war, prevailed among the Poles of Vilnius.59 The Lithuanian government ignored these statements – in February 1940, representatives of the government felt disposed to tolerate the Polish activists and their activity until the Lithuanian government ﬁ rmly established itself in Vilnius, having in mind the ﬁ rm establishment of the national dominance of the Lithuanians in the capital too.60 The Lithuanian government did not treat the Polish-speaking residents of Vilnius as a homogeneous body of Polish-speaking people. The representatives of the authorities tried to differentiate Polish speakers by categories according to their potential loyalty. They admitted that the policy pursued by the government with respect to the Poles in the Vilnius Region had to be different from the methods, which were applied in the rest of Lithuania. It was necessary to act carefully.61 Lithuanian politicians understood that it would be impossible to simply curb Polishness in Vilnius as had been done in the remaining part of Lithuania. Different tactics were needed. The caution of the representatives of the government was fuelled by the realisation that the question of Vilnius’s belonging to one country or the other would eventually be resolved at the end of the war, and that there were no guarantees that Vilnius would remain in the hands of Lithuania. The Lithuanian political elite thought that the political

57 Pagrindui pasikeitus [After the Basis has Changed], in: Lietuvos aidas from 25.11.1939. 58 Pro memoria about Z. Jundziłł’s talk to the correspondent of the XX amžiaus [The 20th Cen- tury] P. Ąžuolas 12 February 1940, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1033, l. 267-269; Pro memoria about A. Trimakas’ talk to Z. Jundziłł on 20 February 1940, ibidem, l. 264; Pro memoria about K. Bizauskas’ talk to B. Krzyżanowski 24 February 1940, LCVA, ibidem, l. 227; Pro memoria about E. Turauskas’ talk to the Editor-in-Chief of the Kurjer Wileński [Vilnius Cou- rier] W.C. Staniewicz on 6 March 1940, ibidem, l. 259-260. 59 Bulletin No. 60 of the State Security Department on 23 February 1940, in: LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 2234, l. 39. 60 Pro memoria concerning the future of the Kurjer Wileński of 09.02.1940, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1033, l. 272-273. 61 V. Čečeta’s pro memoria about Vilnius Poles of 03.04.1940, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1033, l. 235-238.

188 position of the residents of Vilnius could be an important factor in solving the question of Vilnius. This encouraged the government to look for ways of winning the residents of Vilnius over to their side. In May 1940, when it was already decided to liquidate the institution of the Representative of the Government for the Vilnius Region, an em- ployee of that institution Viktoras Čečeta noted that the fate of Vilnius depended on the government’s policy towards national minorities in the regained capital. He stated that this policy had drawbacks and proposed basic guidelines for a Lithuanian nationality policy. First of all, he underlined that the greatest mistake made in seeking to establish oneself in Vilnius was referring to Lithuanians only. He proposed to neutralise the Poles’ pronounced infl uence exerted in different spheres (both economic and cultural) in the city of Vilnius by communicating with and supporting the Jewish and Belarusian national communities, whose rights were restricted in Poland. For example, to recognise not only Polish but also the languages of other minorities as the actual language of the minority thus essentially neutralising Polish, which was the dominant language. The policy of the Lithuanian government with respect to national communities fi rst and foremost needed to be focused on the people rather than on the intelligentsia, offering to appeal to them with “bread and the liberalism of language”, solving social problems and liberalising the Lithuanisation course in the sphere of language. At the same time Viktoras Čečeta argued that taking into consideration merely one Polish minority in the sphere of language, education and local administration created a situation where the Polish community in the Vilnius Region found itself in a privileged position as compared to other national communities.62 He stated what, as we have already mentioned, the Belarusian activists had ascertained. Other representatives of the Lithuanian political elite also urged the government to look for allies against the Poles among other national minorities. For example, the envoy of the Republic of Lithuania in France, Klimas , proposed to Lithuanianise Vilnius fi rst of all basing oneself on the Jews, and seek to win them over to their side fi rst as a staunch ally against the Poles. He argued that “it was useful and necessary to make the Jews in Vilnius citizens of Lithuania” because they could resolve “the Lithuanian fate of Vilnius”.63 As is written in historical literature, still before Vilnius was given over to the Republic of Lithuania, there were articles that appeared in the Vilnius Jewish press in which joy was express at such a course of events.64 However, as can be judged from Šarūnas Liekis’s study, until the summer of 1940 the Lithuanian government did not manage to fully develop, not to speak even implement, any consistent policy with respect to the Jews, which may have been able to turn them into strong allies of the Lith- uanians in their fi ght against the Poles.65 It should be added that there were people who

62 V. Čečeta’s pro memoria about the situation in Vilnius of 03.05.1940, in: LCVA, f. 923, ap. 1, b. 1032, l. 291-292. Also see LIEKIS, 1939, p. 293. 63 Statement of the Envoy of the Republic of Lithuania in France Petras Klimas to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Juozas Urbšys about political, national and cultural perspectives of Vil- nius. 12.04.1940, in: KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA, pp. 541-544. 64 LIEKIS, 1939, p. 294. 65 Ibidem, pp. 287-306. The main problem between the authorities and the Jews was the status of the Jewish community.

189 urged the government simply to take advantage of the opportunity and “Lithuanianise Vilnius by all possible means” even more radically by simply radically restricting the rights of the Polish community in all possible spheres without looking for allies among the national minorities.66 On the whole, in 1939-1940, Lithuanian nationality policy in the Vilnius Region was in essence only a reactive response to the challenges posed. There was no special explicit nationality policy devoted to the Vilnius Region. The only thing that was clear was the main opponent that prevented the Lithuanian authorities from becoming established in Vilnius, and that was the Polish community. The policy of Lithuanisation, ﬁ rst and foremost, was aimed at them; however, it affected the Jew- ish and Belarusian communities as well.67 This created a paradoxical situation: other national communities saw the Polish national community as a privileged community, both because of the status of Polish as a lingua franca that continued to exist in Vilnius and because of the greater attention paid to the Poles by the government, though that attention was often ambiguous. The Polish daily Nowe Słowo [New Word] that began being published in Vilnius in 1940 through the care of the government can serve as an example of this, in which it was underlined from the very ﬁ rst issues that Vilnius was the ancient capital of Lithuania and legally belonged to it.68 The authorities turned the institution of citizenship into an important instrument of Lithuanianisation in the Vilnius Region. On 27 October 1939, the Leading Law on the Management of the City of Vilnius and its Region established that only those residents of Vilnius were entitled to acquiring citizenship of Lithuania whose permanent place of residence on the day of promulgating that Law was in the Vilnius Region and who on the day of coming into force of the Soviet Lithuanian Peace Treaty signed on 12 July 1920 were deemed to be citizens of Lithuania with their place of residence being in the Vilnius Region.69 The principle of autochthony in the Vilnius Region became the main condition for acquiring citizenship. This was based on the idea that prevailed in the Lithuanian discourse that the majority of residents in the Vilnius Region “were Lithu- anians in body and soul”, however, as a result of the policy of Polonisation carried out by the Polish government in the Vilnius Region and other processes of Polonisation “at least half all those residents had forgotten how to speak Lithuanian”.70 The political elite thought that the majority of the local Poles of Vilnius (who lived in the city since olden times) would be loyal citizens of the state of Lithuania if only the Polish “newcomers” that were settled in interwar Vilnius by the Polish government

66 Statement of the Envoy of the Republic of Lithuania in Moscow Ladas Natkevičiaus to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Juozas Urbšys about the relations between Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Poland in exile. 18.04.1940, in: KASPARAVIČIUS/LIBERA, pp. 544-546. 67 LAURINAVIČIUS, Litewska, pp. 63-64. 68 V. S AK. [N. SAKOWICZ]: Przed nową kartą historji [Prior to a New Page of History], in: Nowe Słowo from 14.14.1940; IDEM: Czas się opamiętać [It is Time to Come to One’s Senses], in: Nowe Słowo from 15.01.1940. 69 Vilniaus miesto ir jo srities tvarkymo įvedamasis įstatymas [Leading Law on the Manage- ment of the City of Vilnius and its Region], in: Vyriausybės žinios from 27.10.1939, no. 671. 70 Ko visomis galiomis siekiam – visuomet įvyks [What is Sought For With All Our Might is Always Sure to Happen], in: Trimitas 10 (1940), p. 234.

190 along with the sheltered war refugees did not “stir up trouble”. Both the Lithuanian government and its political and cultural elite treated the citizens of Poland who settled in the Vilnius Region after the Żeligowski’s “revolt” as a loyal social layer to Poland that was carefully created by the Polish government, which became a political support of the Polish government and from whose representatives the state administrative apparatus was formed.71 A total of 87,600 of who were referred to as “newcomers” were registered in Vilnius as of May 1940.72 The authorities expected that after the granting of citizenship to the residents of the Vilnius Region had been set up and suitably regulated, it would be possible to largely solve the problem of the residents of the Vilnius Region and, ﬁ rst of all, of those in the capital who were disloyal to Lithuania – by not granting citizenship and thus simply eliminating them from active political, cultural and economic life.73 It seems likely that the government hoped that the problem of the “newcomers” and war refugees would to a large extent work itself out; having granted them an unfavourable social status they would be effectively pushed by themselves to emigrate from Lithuania in all possible ways. The Lithuanian government, however, did not take into consideration the fact that the attitude that prevailed in the Polish community in the Vilnius Region that Lithuania was only ruling Vilnius temporarily. Moreover, it was not so simple for them to leave to another country. On 30 November 1939, the issuance of Lithuanian passports to the residents of Vilnius Region commenced. All individuals who had been settled in the Vilnius Re- gion after Żeligowski’s “revolt” in 1920, together with the Polish refugees that found themselves in Vilnius in the autumn of 1939, were automatically considered to be foreigners, which meant that sooner or later they would have to leave Lithuania. Hence, 65,000-70,000 Polish “newcomers” and 25,000-40,000 war refugees had to be refused Lithuanian citizenship.74 The issuance of passports turned into an instrument of Lith- uanianisation, both due to the fact that those who received passports were pressed to choose Lithuanian nationality and due to the Lithuanianisation of their names in the passports.75 A total of 26,500 refugees were registered in the Vilnius Region as of February 1940, with the absolute majority being concentrated in Vilnius.76 The large concentration of the refugees made the provision of humanitarian aid to them more difﬁ cult, and it became a complicated social problem for the city. Of no less importance, however, was the fact that this large amount of refugees in Vilnius was at odds with the government’s plans to Lithuanianise the capital. They began to develop plans without delay and began to implement a policy of evicting the refugees from the capital to the coun-

71 RAPOLAS MACKEVIČIUS: Pagrindinis klausimas [The Main Issue], in: Lietuvos aidas from 14.11.1939; also see LIEKIS, 1939, pp. 284-285. 72 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 52-54. 73 Pilietybės klausimas [The Issue of Citizenship], in: Lietuvos aidas from 13.11.1939. 74 Nauji piliečiai ir svetimšaliai [The New Citizens and Foreigners], in: Lietuvos aidas from 30.11.1939. 75 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 116-117. 76 STRELCOVAS, p. 87.

191 tryside; however, this process was particularly slow until the spring of 1940 because no one wanted to move away from Vilnius.77 In the spring of 1940, the Prime Minister of Lithuania Antanas Merkys stated the following about the “newcomers”: “Neither with our land nor with our nation do they or can they have anything in common [...] The newcomers residing in Vilnius and its Region are a part of the Polish nation, alien to Lithuanianness and the Lithuanian state”.78 The Lithuanian political elite did not hold any hope of turning the “newcomers” into loyal citizens; the latter were treated as a channel of the anti-Lithuanian Polish underground, anti-Lithuanian moods and destructive activities.79 The above-mentioned expectation of the government that the problem of the “newcomers” and war refugees would solve itself did not justify itself, therefore in the spring of 1940 the government began solving the problem of the “newcomers” and war refugees in a more radical way. First of all, in March of 1940, by administrative decision the “newcomers” were equated to the category of foreigners and their legal position was likened to the status of war refugees. The “newcomers” could do “only simple agricultural and forestry work”, lost their right to choose the place of residence, and acquire real estate.80 All of this was followed by an intensiﬁ ed eviction of the refugees and “newcomers” from Vilnius to other locations of Lithuania. Until the eve of the loss of Lithuania’s independence in 1940, a total of 5,220 individuals, including 1,975 Poles and 3,245 Jews were evicted from Vilnius.81 A citizenship institution was used in restructuring the Vilnius Region and “cleansing” the administrative apparatus. The reorganisation of this management mechanism was accompanied by dismissals of the old employees; the “newcomers” were the ﬁ rst to be dismissed, who were those who had no right to acquire Lithuanian citizenship. In this way about 7,000 people lost their jobs – from railway employees to professors. One can agree with the opinion that all this acquired the features of national segregation.82 For example, 768 Poles, 486 Lithuanians, and 80 Jews, etc. worked at the municipality of the city of Vilnius in April 1940, and 506 Polish employees were dismissed at that institution.83 When forming the new governing body in Vilnius, the Lithuanian government hoped to be able to largely base themselves on Vilnius’s Lithuanians as an undoubtedly loyal element84, however, soon it turned out that the human resources of the Vilnius Lithuanians were limited. By making use of the institution of citizenship, the Lithuanian government sought to divide the inhabitants of the Vilnius Region – to win over to their side those who, as was believed, were thought to be possible to be Lithuanianised and to eliminate the

77 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, p. 111. 78 Ibidem, p. 54. 79 For more about it see: SURGAILIS, pp. 80-89; STRELCOVAS, pp. 104-116. 80 STRELCOVAS, pp. 124-125. 81 SURGAILIS, p. 157. 82 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 119-127. 83 ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus, pp. 55-56. 84 DOMAS STANKŪNAS: Kelias į Vilnių [The Road to Vilnius], in: Lietuvos aidas from 24.10.1939; Vilniaus reikalai [Vilnius’ Affairs], in: Lietuvos aidas from 09.11.1939.

192 rest. However according to historian Piotr Łossowski , this had the opposite effect with respect to the Polish community, as it consolidated the community.85

Making the Capital Lithuanian

In the autumn of 1939, it was like two capitals had appeared in Lithuania: Vilnius, the historical and constitutional capital and Kaunas, the provisional capital. Vilnius was the de jure capital, but the actual centre of the state’s political, economic and cultural life remained in Kaunas. The provisional capital was going to lose its status as the most signifi cant city of the state, but at the same time it was understood that it would not be possible to concentrate the whole life of the state in Vilnius within a short time. Some newspapers even started considering the possibility of dividing the functions up between Vilnius and Kaunas. Hardly a month had passed after the recovery of Vilnius, and considerations appeared in the press that it would be rational if Vilnius were the capital, a political and cultural centre, with Kaunas playing the role of an economic centre; therefore it was proposed to leave the Ministries of Finance, Agriculture, as well as Transport and Communications, and even higher education studies oriented towards training specialists in the sphere of natural, economic and exact sciences in Kaunas.86 At the end of January 1940, Prime Minister Merkys, to the question posed by the representatives of the press about when the government was going to move to Vilnius, answered that nobody doubted the necessity of the action itself, however it was necessary to prepare for moving, and Vilnius itself, fi rst and foremost, “had to be worthy to be the capital of the Republic of Lithuania in its appearance”. The Prime Minister added that “it was not only the external appearance of the city but also its spirit and mood that had to adapt themselves to the new, respectful and great duties that awaited the city”.87 Thus fi rst of all they sought to Lithuanianise the city at least externally, before undertaking any specifi c action to create the centre of the state in Vilnius. The Lithuanian government carried out a suffi ciently fi xed and consistent Lithua- nianisation of the capital, which manifested itself in different ways. This manifested itself in the public realm with the elimination of what was understood as Polishness (removing what was referred to as “the stamp of foreign culture”88), and strengthening of what was considered to be Lithuanian. It was sought to Lithuanianise the face of Vilnius, which had become the capital, as soon as possible, at least externally. The fi rst

85 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 128-129. 86 FABIJONAS ŽLOBICKAS: Kaunas ir Vilnius [Kaunas and Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 13.11.1939; V. RAMOJUS: Gyvenimo su Vilnium organizavimas [Organising Life with Vilni- us], in: Vairas 42 (1939), pp. 832-833; VLADAS JAKUBĖNAS: Mūsų santykiai su lenkais [Our Relations with the Poles], in: Naujoji Romuva 46 (1939), p. 883. 87 Lietuvos nepriklausomybės stiprinimas – didžiausias vyriausybės rūpestis. Min. Pirm. A. Merkio pasikalbėjimas su spaudos atstovais [Strengthening Lithuania’s Independence is the Government’s Greatest Concern. Talk of Prime Minister Antanas Merkys to the Press Re- presentatives], in: Vilniaus balsas from 30.01.1940. 88 S. VYKINTAS: Kultūrinės perspektyvos Vilnių atgavus [Cultural Perspectives Upon Recovery of Vilnius], in: Lietuvos aidas from 14.10.1939.

193 signboards of the shops in Lithuanian appeared in Vilnius on the initiative of the shop owners themselves the moment the Lithuanian Army marched into the city.89 A couple of weeks later the offi cial newspaper wrote with enthusiasm that Lithuanian writing in the shops, at public catering and different servicing enterprises appeared “by itself, without any instructions from the administration”, while Marija Šlapelienė’s Lithua- nian bookshop was extremely popular with the local residents who bought Lithuanian language textbooks.90 There were more facts of this spontaneous “Lithuanianisation”, however the Lithuanianisation of Vilnius’s cityscape could be said to have been fi rst and foremost “encouraged” by the obligatory regulations of the government. The head of the city of Vilnius and its Region Jonas Šlepetys instructed that trade, industry and other signboards should be immediately replaced by signboards in Lithuanian, the offi - cial state language. At the same time it was prohibited to wear uniforms of Polish offi - cials, soldiers and other organisations.91 The desire to externally Lithuanianise Vilnius by removing all notices and inscriptions other than those in Lithuanian drew attention even to the inscriptions on the centuries-old monuments in the churches of Vilnius in Latin and Polish. There was even a proposal that appeared in the Lithuanian press published in Vilnius to “fi x” the inscriptions located in the interiors of Vilnius churches: to leave the old inscriptions in Latin and destroy the Polish ones made later or to leave them only on the condition that an inscription in Lithuanian appeared next to them.92 These ideas, though they were not implemented, were born out of the desire to Lithua- nianise the capital as much as possible. It was decided without delay to change the “Polish” names of the streets of Vilnius that were an eyesore. In the autumn of 1939, a discussion about the new names of the streets of the capital broke out in the press.93 During the debate, a directory proposal was published in the offi cial newspaper to adhere to the following principle in choosing names for Vilnius’s streets: “the names of the streets must be meaningful; historical names need to be chosen for streets that suit their importance; furthermore, these names must be nice, sonorous, and Lithuanian”. As for the main street of the capital, a proposal was made to give it the name of Gediminas or Vasario 16-oji [the 16th of February].94 All the participants in the discussion agreed unanimously on the strategic direction in changing the names of the streets – the names of the streets had to become

89 S. MIGLINAS: Vilniaus nuotaikos pradeda giedrėti [Moods of Vilnius Start Improving], in: Lietuvos aidas from 01.11.1939. 90 INOCENTAS JASILIONIS: Vilnius lietuviškėja [Vilnius is Becoming More Lithuanian], in: Lietu- vos aidas from 17.11.1939. 91 Vilniaus miesto ir apskrities viršininkas aktualiais klausimais [The Head of Vilnius and its District on Urgent Issues], in: Vilniaus balsas from 29.11.1939. 92 K.B. Vilniaus miesto išorinis ir išvidinis atlietuvėjimas [External and Internal Lithuanianisa- tion of the City of Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 25.01.1940. 93 Lietuvos sostinės Vilniaus planas [Plan of Vilnius, Capital of Lithuania], in: XX amžius from 19.10.1939; ST. VK.: Dėl Vilniaus gatvių vardų [Concerning the Names of Vilnius Streets], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.10.1939; Vilniaus gatvių vardų reikalu [On the Issue of the Names of Vilnius Streets], in: Lietuvos aidas from 26.10.1939; BIRŽIŠKA, Apie, pp. 5-7. 94 ST. VK.: Dėl Vilniaus gatvių vardų [On the Names of Vilnius Streets], in: Lietuvos aidas from 21.10.1939.

194 a refl ection of the narrative of the national history of Lithuania. At the beginning of 1940, a statement appeared in the press about the already-changed names of Vilnius’s streets. The new names of the streets perpetuated the narrative of the national history in the city landscape – streets were named after historical fi gures as well as participants in the national movement and cultural fi gures. The central street of the city that had been named after Adam Mickiewicz was given the name of Duke Gediminas, and one of the streets in the Žvėrynas neighbourhood was named Mickevičiaus [Mickiewicz] street. In this way, Adam Mickiewicz was ‘deported’ from the centre of the city.95 The Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region largely approved of the new names of the streets, but did express surprise at the fact that a street named after Adomas Jakštas was going to appear in Vilnius who, according to the press of Vilnius “disliked Vilnius his entire life”96 having in mind the fact that Adomas Jakštas, as has already been mentioned, at the beginning of the 20th century saw the centre of Lithuanians as being in Kaunas rather than in Vilnius.97 Lituanianisation noticeably affected the sphere of education. First of all, the Lithua- nian government began reforming schools. Polish schools were Lithuanianised – Lith- uanian subjects were introduced in the curriculum, and some teachers were dismissed. This was met with resistance that broke out in strikes staged by the pupils and teachers at the end of November and beginning of December. The pupils and teachers on strike demanded that the order that had been established at Polish schools when Vilnius was under the rule of the Polish authorities should be preserved. The Lithuanian government did not come to any compromises and squelched the strike.98 The next step was the closing of Stephen Báthory University (Uniwersytet Stefana Batorego) and the re- establishment of Vilnius University (and in this way emphasising a historical tradition) in the middle of December 1939 in its place. Both the Lithuanian government and the Lithuanian political and cultural elite explained that the Polish University was closed because its activity was contrary to the interests of the state of Lithuania.99 When the war broke out the university, which was dominated by Polish students, turned into a refuge for students who withdrew from German-occupied Poland as well as for the Polish offi cers. In the eyes of the Lithuanian government the university was simply a centre of Polish Nationalism and active resistance to the Lithuanian government; they did not believe it was possible to turn it into a politically loyal educational institution, therefore they decided simply to destroy the academic “stronghold of the enemies”. By closing the Polish university and establishing a Lithuania university, the Lithuani-

95 Vilniaus miesto gatvių sąrašas [The List of the Names of Vilnius Streets], in: Vilniaus balsas from 10.01.1940, 11.01.1940, 12.01.1940. 96 R.M.: Vanagėlis-Vrublevskis, in: Vilniaus balsas from 13.01.1940. 97 See Chapter I. 98 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 104-106; WINCENCIAK. 99 S TASYS ŠALKAUSKIS: Universitetas ir tautos gyvenimas [The University and the Nation’s Life], in: Židinys 12 (1939), p. 175; VLADAS JAKUBĖNAS: Mūsų santykiai su lenkais Vilnių atgavus [Our Relations with the Poles Upon the Recovery of Vilnius], in: Naujoji Romuva 46 (1939), p. 822; S. VYKINTAS: Vilniaus krašto kultūros organizavimas [Organisation of Culture of the Vilnius Region], in: Vairas 1 (1940), p. 60; KAZIMIERAS MASILIŪNAS: Vilniaus universitetas [Vilnius University], in: Vairas 2 (1940), p. 86.

195 an government in essence undertook deliberate social engineering in Vilnius aimed at Lithuanianising the capital of Lithuania. The Lithuanian students who fl ooded Vilnius fi rst had to Lithuanianise the face of the capital externally. However, the main mission of the students was preparing for becoming the new Lithuanian intelligentsia of Vilnius, with its goal being to Lithua- nianise Vilnius. Therefore, in the opinion of the government, the humanities were to dominate at the Vilnius University that was being re-established, and they urged the university to move the humanities faculties of Vytautas Magnus University in Kau- nas to Vilnius.100 In January 1940, Vilnius University started work with two faculties, which had been moved from Kaunas, which were the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Law. If the mission of the students and graduates of the Faculty of Humani- ties was to create a Lithuanian spirit in Vilnius and work in the sphere of education and culture, the Faculty of Law was to become a place in the capital for training Lithuanian offi cials. In a general sense, Vilnius University was to serve the purpose of making Vilnius “nationally pure”.101 In the spring of 1940, there were 1,061 students studying at the two faculties at Vilnius University.102 To enable Vilnius University to carry out its mission of Lithuanianisation consistently, plans were made to move the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy from Kaunas to Vilnius University so that Vilnius University could train Lithuanian clergymen for pastoral work in the Vilnius Region as a counterbalance to the Polish clergymen dominating in the region. However, there were formal obstacles that interfered with this.103 Both the government and the Lithuanian political and cultural elite saw the Lith- uanian Faculty of Theology and Philosophy of Vilnius University as a tool to consolidate the pro-Lithuanian positions in the Catholic Church in the Vilnius Region. The Lithuanian discourse teemed with accusations against the clergy of the Vilnius Diocese of having a pro-Polish orientation. Vilnius Archbishop Romuald Jałbrzykowski was accused of loyalty to Polish Nationalism, the non-recognition of Lithuania’s rights to Vilnius, and Polonisation of the faithful. The Lithuanian press was full of demands to block the way to the denationalisation policy carried out by the Church in the Vilnius Region, and Jałbrzykowski , referred to as “an old enemy of the Lithuanian people”, was urged to leave Vilnius, “the cradle of Lithuanian Catholicism” as soon as possible. At the same time, demands were made to strengthen Lithuanian positions in the Vilni- us Diocese.104 The Lithuanian government took steps at the Vatican, seeking to make

100 Vilniaus universitetas [Vilnius university], in: Lietuvos aidas from 01.12.1939. 101 Vilniaus universitetui darbą pradedant [With Vilnius University Starting Work], in: Lietuvos aidas from 15.10.1940. 102 MANČINSKAS, p. 138. Only 141 out of 3,000 students of Stephen Báthory University made use of the right to continue studies at Vilnius or Kaunas Universities: ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, p. 227. 103 B. KAZIMIERAITIS: Vilnius laukia Teologijos Filosoﬁ jos fakulteto iš Kauno [Vilnius is Look- ing Forward to the Faculty of Theology-Philosophy from Kaunas], in: Lietuvos aidas from 16.01.1940. 104 P. N ERIS: Sveiko sprendimo belaukiant [Waiting for a Sound Solution], in: Lietuvos aidas from 18.11.1939; VYTAUTAS ALANTAS: Lenkijos mirtis ir Lietuvos bažnyčia [Death of Po- land and the Lithuanian Church], in: Vairas 41 (1939), pp. 819-821; Lietuvybė ir katalikybė

196 the Vilnius Region a part of the ecclesiastical province of Lithuania, and to remove Jałbrzykowski from his seat as Bishop of Vilnius, however, their efforts bore no fruit. The representatives of the government and Lithuanian society asked the Bishop of Vil- nius to expand pastoral practice in Lithuanian in the city, but the bishop did not yield. It was only in May 1940, after Lithuanians began a “song war” in the churches of Vilnius (during the church service in Polish, they began to sing religious songs in Lithuanian demonstratively) that the Bishop of Vilnius yielded under pressure from the Vatican, and church services in Lithuanian were introduced in the most important churches of the city.105 The most important role in this “song war”, which sometimes turned into scuffl es, was played by the Lithuanian students who had moved to Vilnius from Kaunas. Par- ticipating in the fi ght for Lithuanian church services in the churches of Vilnius were students who were absolutely indifferent to religion – they simply considered this to be their patriotic duty. On the whole, the Lithuanian students Lithuanianised the capital by their emphatically pro-Lithuanian attitude in the everyday life of Vilnius.106 The Polish activists and the Archbishop of Vilnius thought that the student “song war” was a campaign planned by the Lithuanian government; however it was the initiative of the nationalistically-inclined Lithuanian students themselves. It stands to reason that the government found that acceptable to a certain degree, however, they did not support this religious extremism, and the government’s moderate attitude concerning the question of Vilnius was unacceptable for the radically-disposed Lithuanian youth.107 Lithuanian society did not lack for spontaneous initiatives and campaigns of Vilni- us’s Lithuanianisation, which sometimes were of a symbolic nature. For example, congresses of nearly all Lithuanian public organisations and societies were held in Vilnius. At the beginning of 1940, the daily Lietuvos aidas stated that in Vilnius “there is not a single holiday that should pass without one or more meetings of different organisations being held”.108 These meetings were accompanied by getting to know Vilnius – visiting historical places of the city became “an obligatory item” on the agenda. It was like a symbolic way of taking possession of the city. For example, on 10 December 1939, about 1,000 rifl emen arrived to participate in the Congress of the Commanders of the Units of the Union of Rifl emen held in Vilnius. The gathering of the rifl emen started with church services at the Gate of Dawn. Later the rifl emen marched to Gediminas Hill where a speech delivered by the Commander of the Rifl emen’s Union was accompanied by patriotic songs. After that, the graves of Basanavičius and the Lithuanian soldiers were honoured in Rasos Cemetery. It was only towards the evening, when the capital was symbolically taken possession of, did the Congress of the Rifl emen start

Vilniaus dijacezijoje [Lithuanianism and Catholicism in the Diocese of Vilnius], in: Naujoji Romuva 20-21 (1940), pp. 391-393. 105 ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa, pp. 132-139; KASPARAVIČIUS, Tarp, pp. 481-511. 106 DAUGIRDAITĖ, pp. 168-169. 107 KASPERAVIČIUS, Polacy, p. 158. 108 Du šaulių suvažiavimai Vilniuje [Two Congresses of the Riﬂ emen in Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 27.02.1940.

197 in the building where the Great Seimas of Vilnius had commenced their meeting in 1905.109 The Lithuanianisation of Vilnius became a kind of ideological basis for mass pilgrimages of Lithuanians to the historical capital. On Pentacost in 1940 alone, there were 15,000 organised visitors that came to Vilnius.110 The Lithuanians who arrived in Vilnius for the ﬁ rst time were confused by the dominance of Polish in the city therefore the visitors were “instructed” in advance so that they should not be misled by the external “features of strangeness” still present in the city. In press publications, which were similar to instructions, it was emphasised that one had to have two things in mind when getting acquainted with Vilnius: 1. The Grand Dukes of Lithuania Gediminas , Vytautas the Great and others laid the foundations for the culture of the past of our capital and 2. Vilnius had never stopped being the centre of the state and cultural life of the Lithuanian nation.111 In 1939, after Lithuania regained Vilnius, the Guide to Vilnius issued in Kaunas stated that it was necessary only “to blow off the dust of strangeness and we shall see the old city of Gediminas again – the capital of Lithuania”.112 The Lithuanian Tourism Association undertook the coordinating becoming acquainted with Lithuanian Vilnius – in the spring of 1940, it trained 100 guides in Vilnius who had to help the arriving guided tours to ﬁ nd the Lithuanian face of the capital, and reveal its Lithuanian nature. The Lithuanian Tourism Association sought to achieve that every tour, which arrived in the capital, should not leave “without spending at least some hours in the care of a Lith- uanian guide” in Vilnius”.113 This pilgrimage to this regained Vilnius, which was encouraged by the desire to see the city that had become a symbol in their mind, through their own eyes helped to reinforce the image of Vilnius as a real capital of Lithuania. Propaganda campaigns were further organised to reinforce the image of the capital in the public’s consciousness; for example, in 1941 it was decided to festively commemorate the 600th anniversary of the death of the founder of Vilnius, Grand Duke of Lith- uania Gediminas . Something similar to the campaign of the anniversary celebration of Vytautas the Great was planned to be organised.114 A large festival of Lithuanian art to be held on 29-30 June 1940 in Vilnius had to become a prologue to this anniversary cel-

109 Šaulių Sąjungos dalinių vadų suvažiavimas Vilniuje [Congress of the Commanders of the Units of the Union of Riﬂ emen], in: Vilniaus balsas from 12.12.1940; Naujas Lietu- vos gyvenimas su Vilnium [New Life of Lithuania with Vilnius], in: Trimitas 50 (1939), pp. 1208-1209. 110 J. ŠLEPETYS: Turizmo reikalai Vilniuje [Tourism Matters in Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 14.04.1940; K.: Vilnius jau turi 100 ekskursijų vadovų [Vilnius Already Has 100 Tour Guides], in: Vilniaus balsas from 18.05.1940. 111 K.B.: Mūsų turizmas ir Vilnius [Our Tourism and Vilnius], in: Vilniaus balsas from 11.04.1940. 112 NARBUTAS, Vadovas, p. 5. 113 K.: Vilnius jau turi 100 ekskursijų vadovų [Vilnius Already Has 100 Tour Guides], in: Vil- niaus balsas from 18.05.1940; E. KARNĖNAS: Ar pažįstame Vilnių? [Do We Know Vilnius?], in: Vilniaus balsas from 22.05.1940. 114 ALEKSANDRAS MERKELIS: Čia pat Gedimino 600 m. mirties sukaktis [The 600th Anniversary of the Death of Gediminas is at Hand], in: Lietuvos aidas from 30.03.1940.

198 ebration campaign during which the mystery “Gediminas’ Dream” directed by Borisas Dauguvietis was to be performed near Gediminas Hill.115 Merkys noted at the Congress of the Burgomasters of the Cities of Lithuania held in Vilnius on 1 June 1940 that “Kaunas, which has dominated in Lithuania up until now, has to give leadership within the family of Lithuanian cities” to the regained Vilnius”.116 The following day the institution of the Representative of the Government for the Vilnius Region was abolished, which testifi ed to the fact that the Lithuanian government considered the Vilnius Region already suffi ciently integrated into the body of the Lithuanian state. The city had already acquired an external Lithuanian character. In the middle of June, Lithuanian President Smetona was getting ready for an offi cial visit to Vilnius, however the visit to the capital didn’t take place, as Lithuania had lost its independence by that time.

115 E. KARNĖNAS: Didžiajai meno šventei artėjant [With the Great Festival of Art Approaching], in: Vilniaus balsas from 01.06.1940. 116 Kalbos, pasakytos Lietuvos miestų burmistrų suvažiavime [Speeches Delivered at the Con- gress of Burgomasters of Lithuanian Cities], in: Vilniaus balsas from 02.06.1940.

199 In Lieu of a Conclusion

The programme of Lithuanian Nationalism that started to be formed at the end of the 19th century gradually created the “geo-body” of Lithuania with Vilnius at its centre, referred to as “Lithuania’s heart”.1 This heart metaphor shows that the historical capital was not just any part of this “geo-body”, but its most important one, thus any encroachment upon it could only be understood as an encroachment upon the livelihood of the nation. The main motive of the Lithuanians to see Vilnius as the capital of a modern Lithuania was the desire to declare historical continuity that this modern Lithuania was continuing the tradition of statehood that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had, which, in the opinion of the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement, also meant the conﬁ rmation of the right of the Lithuanian nation to statehood. What was referred to as the “ethnographic argument” had to testify to the validity of the rights of Lithuani- ans, which declared that Vilnius had been in a territory inhabited by Lithuanians since ancient times and that the majority of the residents of the country were Lithuanian by origin. During the years of the First World War these arguments were supplemented with a new motive: the Lithuanians felt they had exclusive rights to that city because the national movement was concentrated there at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. After declaring the birth of an independent Lithuanian state with Vilnius on 16 Feb- ruary, 1918, the Lithuanians failed to keep the capital in their hands. In 1919-1920, this city changed hands during numerous struggles until eventually it found itself under the rule of Poland. However, Lithuanians went on regarding Vilnius as their true capital. The struggle for Vilnius and its loss only added to the list of Lithuanians’ arguments about their rights to the city; the bloodshed in the struggles against the Poles for Vilnius became new arguments, and the Lithuanians residing there were called the true autochthons and a part of the nation that had to be liberated from oppression. The refusal of the idea of Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania became unthinkable, especially in interwar Lithuania. According to insightful observer of the political processes of that time, Römeris , the ideal of Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania “is a much stronger dogma than the dogmas of the virgin birth, the infallible Pope and other dogmas of the Catholic Church”. Among the political and intellectual elite in interwar Lithuania, the

1 However, as it has been mentioned in this book, there were cases when the heart metaphor was applied to Kaunas.

200 conviction was very strong that if they failed to recover Vilnius, there would be no hope of preserving Lithuania’s sovereignty. That conviction was so strong that it gave birth to the social movement to liberate Vilnius. However, the idea of Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithuania became not only a political ideal but also a tool of political manipulation. It became common to demonstrate one’s patriotism by using the slogan of the liberation of the capital Vilnius, but it was also used to accuse one’s political opponents of indifference to the goal of recovering Vilnius, which was equal to the betrayal of national interests. At the same time, the idea of Vilnius’s liberation became an effective means in the process of nationalising the masses. The majority of the Lithuanian political and cultural elite sought the implementation of this political idea. It is more diffi cult to judge the penetration of this idea among the masses, however there can be no doubt that in the 1930s it had already become an important part of the collective identity of the majority of Lithuanians due fi rst and foremost to the VLU as well as the nationalising state. From the very beginning of the national movement, many in the Lithuanian intelligentsia understood very well that in the case of Vilnius, the democratic implementation of the principle of self-determination of the inhabitants would not end in favour of a national Lithuania. In the late imperial period, the participants in the Lithuanian National Movement were truly able to turn Vilnius into a major centre of Lithuanian activity; however, as earlier, Lithuanians constituted a very insignifi cant part of the residents of that city. During the inter-war period, despite fi nancial assistance that went from Kaunas to Lithuanian organisations, the situation of the Lithuanians in the Vil- nius Region did not improve. Therefore the Lithuanian political and cultural elite was constantly looking for other ways they could help them implement this idea of Lith- uanian Nationalism. Some Lithuanian politicians thought about cooperation with the Belarusians, however, it was clear to the Lithuanian elite that such an alliance could not be especially effective due to national weakness of the Belarusians; and, on the other hand, could be dangerous, because when the Belarusian nationalists did speak about Lithuania as a political ideal suitable to them, they had in mind the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania rather than a Lithuanian Lithuania. Furthermore, Belarusian Nationalism also fostered the ideal of a national Belarus, according to which Vilnius was to become part of the Belarus. It was quite often, especially until the middle of the 1920s that Lithuanian politicians treated the Jews as potential allies in a fi ght against their main enemy – the Poles. Lithuanian rightists hoped in the times of Tsarist Russia and interwar Lithuania that the “question of Vilnius” would be solved in favour of a Lithuanian Lithuania with external help (from Russia or Russia and Germany). In the autumn of 1939, Joseph Stalin presented Vilnius to Lithuania (together with Red Army bases). This is the main factor that led to Vilnius becoming the capital of modern Lithuania in 1939. Having in mind the ethno-demographic and political situation at the end of the 19th century and fi rst half of the 20th century, one really can, following the Miłosz quote at the beginning of this book, call it a fairy tale with a happy ending. After the Red Army drove the Nazis from Vilnius, on 13 July 1944, Moscow celebrated the “liberation of Vilnius, the capital of the Lithuanian Social Socialist Republic” with artillery salutes marking victory.

201 The motives of the Soviet authorities in the “Vilnius question” to support the Lithu- anians rather than the Poles or Belarusians for the time being i.e. as long as the archives of that period are diffi cult to access for historians, will remain on the plane of different hypotheses. The principles of territorial autonomy presented by Lenin during the late imperial period would most probably have left Lithuania without Vilnius; Moscow had created Lit-Bel because two Soviet republics – Lithuania and Belarus – could not peacefully come to an agreement as to which of them Vilnius was to belong to; later, during the inter-war period the “Vilnius Question” became Moscow’s very convenient tool in infl uencing Lithuania’s foreign policy. When the Second World War broke out and the Nazis, together with the Soviets, attacked Poland, in the autumn of 1939 Mos- cow blackmailed the Lithuanians saying that Vilnius could be given to the Belarusian SSR. The German – Soviet war revived the question of who Vilnius belonged to; nobody knew how the borders would be redrawn in the post-war period. The Lithuanian nationalists who were in German-occupied Lithuania were fi rmly convinced of one thing – fi rst of all, the Lithuanians would have to fi ght with the Poles for Vilnius. When the Red Army came close to Vilnius in 1944, the operation of occupying Vilnius organised by the Polish partisan army (Armia Krajowa) that was subordinate to the Polish Government-in-Exile in London, demonstrated the Poles’ claims to Vilnius. However, that demonstration was already pointless because the fate of Vilnius had already been decided. No doubt that with the Second World War coming to an end, the Soviet authorities understood clearly how sensitive the problem was. It might have seemed to the Soviet government that Vilnius was much dearer to the Lithuanians than to the Poles or Bela- rusians, hence by giving Vilnius to the Lithuanians, Moscow hoped to win more than in redrawing the political map in a different way.2 Moscow always understood perfectly both the importance of the question of Vilnius to Lithuania, as well as the fruits that was borne by the Vilnius liberation campaign in Lithuania. One even gets the impression that it even tried to purposefully make use of these fruits: in 1939, Stalin sought to have the agreement on handing Vilnius over to Lithuania signed on 9 October when Lithuania commemorated its Day of Vilnius; however the agreement was signed on 10 October. Why they sought to do this became clear on 10 October 1940 when a new holiday – the Day of the Recovery of Vilnius – appeared in Lithuania, which had been turned from an independent state into a Soviet Republic. Therefore it can be said that the policy of indoctrination the political and intellectual elite of Lithuania pursued in inter-war Lithuania and which often took on different strongly mythologized forms was a success in two senses: it did not only nationalise the masses – turning peasants into Lithuanians who were convinced that Vilnius belonged to Lithuania, but also greatly contributed to the solution of the issue of Vilnius that was favourable for Lithuania. Handing Vilnius over to Lithuania seemed the only politically rational solution to Stalin – it helped the Soviet regime to disguise Lithuania’s occupation carried out in 1940 and to create a consistent story of propaganda that the Soviet Union had always “sincerely”

2 SNYDER, p. 88.

202 defended the rights of the Lithuanians to Vilnius, and that it was the Soviet Union that “presented” Lithuania with its capital. Really, this “gift” to the Lithuanian national project provided two things. Apart from the fact that eventually Vilnius became a constituent part of modern Lithuania, the ethnographic situation also changed in favour of the Lithuanians. Earlier the Lithua- nian nationalists, excluding certain exceptions, did not even dream about such radical changes that took place in that city during the Second World War and in the post-war years. Following the Holocaust carried out by the Nazis and local collaborators, nearly the entire Jewish community in Lithuania was exterminated. At the beginning of the 20th century some Lithuanian public fi gures dreamed about the abolition of the Pale of Settlement imposed on the Jews in Tsarist Russia, which would induce a large part of this ethno-confessional group to leave Lithuania. In 1939, some Lithuanian politicians devised plans of what was referred to as the eviction of foreigners, however they had no plans of genocide. The agreement on the evacuation of the Lithuanians from the territory of Poland and the evacuation of the Polish residents from the territory of the Lithuanian SSR signed between Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of Lithuania Mečislovas Gedvilas and Chairman of the Polish Committee of National Liberation Edward Osób- ka-Morawski on 22 September 1944 formed a constituent part of the ethnic cleansing carried out en mass in Europe after the Second World War. It is well known from historical literature that this “repatriation” took place only in one direction (to Poland) and fi rst and foremost from Vilnius.3 In this way, the long-held dream of Lithuanian Nationalism concerning the depolonization of Vilnius came true. In the times of Tsarist Russia and in the interwar period to a somewhat lesser degree the Lithuanian intelligentsia hoped that it would be possible to “remind” the Polish-speaking section of society of their true national belonging, i.e., that they were Lithuanians. In 1939, after the incorporation of Vilnius into the make-up of Lithuania, a special procedure of granting Lithuanian citizenship to the residents of the Vilnius Region was created through which the Lithuanian authorities hoped to get rid of a part of the foreigners, fi rst and foremost the Poles. At the end of 1944, the population of Vilnius was only about 110,000 i.e. less than half of what it was before the war. The severe lack of hands necessary to rebuild the city and enterprises forced the government to look for new residents for the capital. The leaders of Soviet Lithuania wanted fi rst and foremost for the local inhabitants to become its residents;4 this was a purely pragmatic aim, however it was in line with the long-standing dreams of Lithuanian Nationalism to Lithuanianise Vilnius. While solving the issue of new residents for the capital, the Soviet authorities even adapted the nationalist rhetoric of the interwar Vilnius liberation campaign to their needs. In 1945, the daily Tiesa [The Truth] carried an article entitled Rebuilding of Vilnius is the Business of all Working People of Lithuania in which it was written not so much about the necessity to rebuild the city but the clear desire to Lithuanianise Vilnius, to say “good-bye” to the Poles who were leaving the city and to invite Lithuanians to move

3 WEEKS, Population, pp. 76-95; STRAVINSKIENĖ, Tarp gimtinės. 4 STRAVINSKIENĖ, Tarp gimtinės, p. 293.

203 to Vilnius.5 As in the 19th century, Lithuanians were not in a hurry to move to Vilnius during the post-war period. As before, the national idea was not a suffi cient stimulus for most to move to the historical capital. In the times of Tsarist Russia, it was diffi cult for a Lithuanian to fi nd a job in the “capital” of what was known as the Northwestern Territory where there were no large industrial enterprises. During the fi rst years of the post-war era many Lithuanians felt like foreigners in Vilnius in an environment where a Polish still dominated.6 The living conditions for the average Lithuanian were much more diffi cult there than those in his home village, so during the post-war period many non-Lithuanians from other Soviet republics arrived in Vilnius, and a large number of demobilised Red Army soldiers stayed to live there. The fact that ethnic Lithuanians did not constitute a dominating group in the Lith- uanian capital in the post-war years was a very sensitive issue to the majority of Lith- uanian intellectuals and some part of the ruling political elite – it was like a new stage in the struggle for the Lithuanian capital. “Vilnius – a decisive battle is going on there: to be or not to be”, wrote literary critic and translator Valys Drazdauskas who became a Communist in the 1930s and a Gulag prisoner in the post-war years. “If it turns out well and 51 per cent of Lithuanians live in this city in 10 to 15 years, the battle will have been won. I believe that it will be won”.7 The Lithuanians won this “battle” that was fought largely in the minds of the intellectuals due to the spontaneous processes of urbanisation, because in the long run, especially following the forced collectivisation that was carried out in the Lithuanian countryside, more and more Lithuanians started to move to Vilnius: in the 1950s Lithuanians accounted for about one third of the city’s population while in 1989 they constituted more than half the city’s population.8 The acquaintance with the real Vilnius rather than the mythical one, the idea of which was introduced during the inter-war period, was a cultural shock to many Lith- uanians.9 Having in mind the fact that the theme of Vilnius most often appeared within the context of mobilising the masses, a context that was mythologized far too much, this should not be surprising. The picture of a Lithuanian Vilnius that was painted during the inter-war period (where there were professedly more Lithuanians, but who were afraid to speak Lithuanian) did not conform to reality at all. The example of Ny- ka-Niliūnas , who grew up in the atmosphere of the campaign to liberate Vilnius and only saw it in 1939 when he was already a student shows what this image of Lithuania’s “geo-body” with Vilnius that had been instilled in society meant to a generation that had never seen the city. Already in emigration and considering the images of the cities in his mind Nyka-Niliūnas stated that since his childhood, for him Vilnius together with Baghdad, Alexandria, Damask, Berlin, Paris, London, and Rome, was only one of the cities of “A Thousand and One Nights”. Even the years spent in this city during the war could not change this link with Vilnius: “Vilnius was more a historical, aesthetic and patriotic experience for me. [...] Even after spending several years in Vilnius, I was

5 MIKAILIENĖ, Kultūrinės, p. 201. 6 TRUSKA, Ilgas, p. 62. 7 Cited according to TRUSKA, Ilgas, p. 63. 8 Ibidem, pp. 63-64. 9 DAVOLIŪTĖ, The Making, p. 83.

204 unable to convince myself that I really lived in that unreal city but not looking through a photo album of its panoramas”.10 The Soviet authorities tried to turn Vilnius into a typical capital of a Soviet republic in its appearance. A new Vilnius began being created in the summer of 1940 with the cityscape of a Soviet capital, however not much was done during the ﬁ rst occupation – there were temporary accents of Soviet propaganda that appeared, and a list was prepared concerning the names of the new streets of the city. The authorities had no time to implement these plans at the time. However after the Second World War, the turning of Vilnius into the capital of this Soviet republic gained momentum not only by implementing the model of using Stalinist architecture, but also in renaming the streets, erecting monuments, organising different commemorations, and rituals among other things. By changing the face of Vilnius, the Soviet authorities accentuated the role of this city as the centre of the revolutionary movement, the history of the Second World War, which was referred to as the Great Patriotic War in the Soviet Union, and the idea of progress.11 Nonetheless, the Soviet regime had to take into consideration the fact that a large part of the titular nations in the annexed Baltic republics, including Lithuania, had a strong national identity, therefore the new authorities that sought for as broad support of the population as possible combined Soviet ideology with traditional national values (in this case Lithuanian values). Hence, many things that gave mention to ethnic Lithuanian accents (streets and monuments named after Lithuanian cultural ﬁ gures) appeared in Vilnius. After Vilnius had become the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania, it was like this “belonging” of this city to the Lithuanians and Lithuania was taken for granted. The Soviet Lithuanian intelligentsia easily incorporated separate episodes of the history of the city into the broader Soviet narrative.12 The Soviet narrative of history told the whole history of Lithuania as a consistent movement towards socialism and the creation of the Lithuanian SSR with its capital in Vilnius was a logical consequence of that unavoidable historical process; at the same time no territorial claims were heard, and could not be heard, from the Polish People’s Republic that belonged to the Soviet bloc and all the more from the Belarusian SSR. Disputes about Vilnius belonging to one or another country between the Lithuanians, Poles and Belarusians in emigration and the political thought of Polish emigration did not reach the public discourse of the Lithuanian SSR.13 At the same time, after the ethnic-demographic situation in Vilnius changed, there was no need to specially accentuate the belonging of this city to ethnographic Lithuania. Another argument of Lithuanian Nationalism about the role of Vilni- us as a religious (Catholic) centre of Lithuania was “forgotten” because of the aggres- sive policy of instilling atheism in society that was carried out during the Soviet period.

10 NYKA-NILIŪNAS, pp. 238-239. 11 MIKALIENĖ, Soviet, pp. 171-189; ANTANAVIČIŪTĖ. 12 DAVOLIŪTĖ, Postwar, pp. 192-194. 13 The question of Vilnius was the main obstacle for the Polish and Lithuanian representatives in exile to come to an agreement after the Second World War: MILERYTĖ, pp. 199-222.

205 Thus, through the means of historical narrative, changing the names of the streets, erecting monuments, and ultimately an increase in the percentage of Lithuanians in the city, Vilnius undoubtedly became not only a Soviet city, but also a Lithuanian city whose symbol (the icon of the city), just like at the time of the birth of the idea of Vilnius as the capital of modern Lithuania was the Tower of Gediminas Castle; it was only that the fl ag of Soviet Lithuania rather than the national three-colour fl ag that was fl ying over the Tower.

206 Zusammenfassung

Der litauische Nationalismus und die Vilnius-Frage, 1883-1940

Gegenstand des vorliegenden Bandes sind die Entstehung und Evolution der Idee von Vilnius als Hauptstadt des modernen Litauen sowie deren Verankerung unter den Mas- sen im ausgehenden 19. und in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (bis 1940). Bei der Untersuchung dieser Probleme werden neben den kulturellen Praktiken, mit deren Hilfe die intellektuelle und politische Elite der Litauer sich Vilnius symbolisch an- zueignen suchte, auch die Bemühungen um die Litauisierung dieser Stadt, d.h. um eine zahlenmäßige ethnisch litauische Mehrheit, eingehend diskutiert. Da im Rahmen des nationalistischen Denkens die Hauptstadt als entscheidend für den Charakter des Nationalstaats betrachtet wurde, machte die Litauisierung von Vilnius einen wichtigen Teil des nationalen litauischen Projekts aus. Für die Nationalisten jener Zeit war ein Nationalstaat mit einer Hauptstadt, deren Bevölkerung nur zu wenigen Prozent aus An- gehörigen der Titularnation bestand, kaum vorstellbar. 1897 stellten jedoch die Litau- er nur 2,1 Prozent der Einwohner der Stadt Vilnius. Eine litauische Mehrheit in der Hauptstadt sollte nicht nur durch Förderung der Zuwanderung von ethnischen Litauern in die historische Hauptstadt, sondern auch durch die „Erinnerung“ der Einwohner mit litauischen Vorfahren an ihre ethnische Herkunft erreicht werden. Daher kommen im vorliegenden Band auch die Bemühungen der Litauer um die Änderung der ethnischen Zusammensetzung der Vilniusser Bevölkerung zu eigenen Gunsten zur Sprache. Die jüdische, polnische, weißrussische sowie russische Sicht werden hier nicht im Detail analysiert, sondern nur zur Verdeutlichung der Gegenargumente gegen die litauischen Ansprüche auf Vilnius im Überblick vorgestellt. Da bildliche Vorstellungen im Mittelpunkt der vorliegenden Untersuchung stehen, kommt der Analyse des litauischen Diskurses besondere Aufmerksamkeit zu. Die Idee von Vilnius als Hauptstadt des modernen Litauen war im Übrigen sehr konkret und die führenden litauischen Nationalisten suchten sie mithilfe üblicher politischer Methoden zu verkörpern. So kommen hier auch Ereignisse zur Sprache, die üblicherweise der politischen oder der Geschichte der internationalen Beziehungen zugerechnet werden. Einer eingehenden Analyse werden ferner die Praktiken der Nationalisierung der Mas- sen unterzogen. Die Kapitel im vorliegenden Band sind chronologisch angeordnet. Im ersten Kapi- tel werden die Gründe dafür untersucht, dass die führenden litauischen Nationalisten

207 sich gegen Ende des Russischen Kaiserreichs für Vilnius als Zentrum / Hauptstadt des nationalen Litauen entschieden, welche Probleme dadurch entstanden und wie sie ihre Idee zu verwirklichen gedachten. Das Hauptmotiv der Litauer für Vilnius als Haupt- stadt des modernen Litauen lag im Wunsch nach historischer Kontinuität. Im zweit- en Kapitel werden die zuvor genannten Problemstellungen zur Zeit des Ersten Welt- kriegs behandelt. In seinem Verlauf tauchte ein neuer Spieler auf der Bildfl äche auf: die deutsche Besatzungsverwaltung, die nicht wenig zur zumindest vorübergehenden Stärkung der litauischen Positionen in Vilnius, der Hauptstadt des im Entstehen be- griffenen litauischen Nationalstaats, beitrug. Die Unabhängigkeitserklärung vom 16. Februar 1918 verkündete die Wiederherstellung der Unabhängigkeit Litauens mit der Hauptstadt Vilnius. Das dritte, die Jahre 1918-1923 umfassende Kapitel beschäftigt sich stärker als die anderen mit der politischen Geschichte im traditionellen Sinn. Es berichtet von einer in Vilnius durch häufi gen Wechsel der Oberherren gekennzeich- neten Zeit. 1918 nimmt die erste litauische Regierung in Vilnius ihre Arbeit auf, doch schon bald sieht sie sich angesichts der Bedrohung durch die Bolschewiki zum Umzug nach Kaunas gezwungen. Vilnius wird Haupstadt Sowjetlitauens und nur wenig später der Litauisch-Weißrussischen Sowjetrepublik (Litbel). Im Frühling 1919 werden die Bolschewiki durch die Polen abgelöst, im Sommer 1920 holen sich die Bolschewiki die Herrschaft über Vilnius zurück. Selben Jahres gelangt die Stadt erneut in die Hände der Litauer, um schon bald wieder von den Polen zurückgeholt und zur Hauptstadt des Quasi-Staates Mittellitauen deklariert zu werden. 1922 wird Mittellitauen mit sein- er Hauptstadt Vilnius (Wilno) in den polnischen Staat inkorporiert. In diesem Kapi- tel wird auch der Versuch einer Lösung der Vilnius-Frage auf diplomatischem Weg erörtert – die Bemühungen der litauischen Regierung um die Lösung der Frage im eigenen Sinne auf einer Friedenskonferenz, durch Verhandlungen mit Polen sowie die vom Völkerbund vorgeschlagenen Projekte zur Regulierung der Vilnius-Frage. Die ständig wechselnde politische Lage jener Zeit lässt den Willen der litauischen politischen Elite zur Etablierung der Hauptstadt des litauischen Nationalstaats in Vilnius klar erkennen. Ebenso verdeutlichen sich die Mobilisierungspraktiken der litauischen Regierung, mit Hilfe derer in der Bevölkerung der Gedanke verankert werden soll, dass nur Vilnius litauische Haupstadt sein kann. Im vierten, die Jahre 1923-1939 umfassenden Kapitel wird aufgezeigt, dass der ungelöste Territorialkonfl ikt mit Polen um Vilnius die Lösung vieler anderer Fragen be- hinderte – insbesondere die Schaffung internationaler Sicherheitsgarantien für Litauen und die Gewährleistung der Sicherheit in Mittelosteuropa. Sowohl der sowjetische Im- perialismus als auch der deutsche Revanchismus benutzten den Konfl ikt um Vilnius als Störfaktor für die Bemühungen der baltischen Staaten und Polens zur Schaffung eines wirksamen kollektiven Sicherheitssystems. Zugleich wird aufgezeigt, dass die Vilni- us-Frage im Litauen der Zwischenkriegszeit nicht nur das wichtigste außenpolitische Problem sondern auch ein wichtiger Faktor in der Innenpolitik war. Von dieser Frage machten in den 1920er Jahren in Litauen die Parteien ausgiebig Gebrauch beim Kampf um die Vorherrschaft im politischen Leben des Landes. Im Zentrum der Aufmerksam- keit aber steht in diesem Kapitel die Frage, wie der immer radikalere Nationalismus die Idee von Vilnius als Hauptstadt Litauens bei den Massen verbreitete. Zwischen dem ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert und den 1920er Jahren etablierte sich die Idee von Vilnius

208 als Hauptstadt des modernen Litauen als einer der Hauptbestandteile des litauischen Nationalismus – der Raum der imaginären litauischen Welt war ohne Vilnius nicht mehr vorstellbar. Im Diskurs des litauischen Nationalismus verankerte sich der Glaube an die besondere Bedeutung von Vilnius für die Staatlichkeit der Litauer und deren kulturelle Traditionen. Diese Einstellung stützte nach dem Umsturz vom 17. Dezember 1926 auch das darauf herrschende autoritäre Regime. Es wurde schon mehrfach fest- gestellt, dass die Überzeugung von der Unverzichtbarkeit von Vilnius für die litauische Welt auch ohne die Bemühungen des politischen Regimes von sämtlichen litauischen Intellektuellen der Zwischenkriegszeit Besitz ergriffen hätte. Diese Einstellung änderte sich während der ganzen Zeit zwischen den Weltkriegen nicht. Die Überzeugung von der Unverzichtbarkeit von Vilnius schuf die Voraussetzungen für die Gründung einer Massenbewegung, des Bundes zur Befreiung von Vilnius (lit. Vilniui vaduoti sąjunga (VVS)). Die Begründer dieses Bundes, Vertreter der nationalistisch engagierten litauischen politischen und kulturellen Elite, verband das Bestreben, die litauische Allge- meinheit (in erster Linie die ethnischen Litauer) für die Befreiungsaktion von Vilnius zu mobilisieren und so jeglichen politischen Spekulationen in Bezug auf die Vilni- us-Frage zuvorzukommen. Der VVS wurde zu einer der migliederstärksten Organi- sationen im Litauen der Zwischenkriegszeit. Er machte von den unterschiedlichsten Mobilisierungspraktiken Gebrauch (spezielle Festivitäten, Gedenkveranstaltungen, Presseveröffentlichungen und sogar Verteilung symbolischer Vilnius-Pässe), um bei der Bevölkerung den Gedanken zu verankern, dass nur Vilnius die Hauptstadt Litauens sein kann. Diese Propagandakampagne wurde nach dem Zielpublikum differenziert durchgeführt – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der jungen Generation. Es wird be- hauptet, dass bei der Verankerung von Vilnius als zum litauischen Raum gehöriger Stadt und deren einziger Hauptstadt in der Vorstellung der Allgemeinheit neben anderen Argumenten (Vilnius als historische Hauptstadt Litauens und Hort der wichtigsten nationalen und religiösen Symbole Gediminasburg und Tor der Morgenröte) die vom VVS aktualisierte Frage der Litauer im Vilnius-Gebiet von besonderer Wichtigkeit war. Der VVS strich seine Sorge um die Litauer in Vilnius als den echten Autochthonen der Stadt heraus und die litauische Regierung ließ der litauischen Gemeinschaft von Vilni- us Unterstützung zukommen. Im fünften und letzten Kapitel des Buches wird die Frage behandelt, wie die litauische politische Elite 1939 nach der Übernahme von Vilnius dieses zur litauischen Stadt zu machen versuchte. Diskutiert werden die Strategien und Praktiken zur Litauisierung der Stadt, die Schritte der Behörden, mit denen der Status der reellen Hauptstadt für Vilnius geschaffen wurde.

Aus dem Litauischen von Markus Roduner

209 List of abbreviations

AAN Archiwum Akt Nowych [The Central Archives of Modern Records]

BRMS Biržai Region Museum Sėla

CAM Collection of Algimantaas Miškinis

CNM M.K. Čiurlionis National Museum of Fine Arts

CPK Collection of Petras Kaminskas

LCSA Lithuanian Central State Archives

LCVA Lietuvos centrinis valstybės archyvas [Lithuanian Central State Archive]

LLFI Lithuanian Literature and Folklore Institute

LLTI RS Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos instituto Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Division of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore]

LMAVB RS Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences]

LNMMB RS Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Retų knygų ir rankraščių skyrius [Division of Rare Books and Manuscripts of the Lithuanian Martynas Mažvydas National Library]

LVIA Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas [Lithuanian State Historical Archives]

LYA Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas [Lithuanian Special Archives]

210 MSZ Ministerwstwo spraw zagranicznych [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

NML National Museum of Lithuania

NMLL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of the Lithuanian National M. Mažvydas Library

PDPL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of the Panevėžys District Gabrielė Petkevičaitė-Bitė Public Library

PWM Public Work Management

VGWM Vytautas the Great War Museum

VIWF Vilnius Iron Wolf Fund

VLU Vilnius Liberation Union

VUB RS Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Department of the Vilnius University Library]

In archival references the following abbreviations are used: For Russian archives d. – delo [ﬁ le] f. – fond [collection] l. – list, listy [leaf, leaves] op. – opis’ [inventory]

For Lithuanian archives ap. aprašas [inventory] b. byla [ﬁ le] f. – fondas [collection] l. – lapas, lapai [leaf, leaves] ps – politinis skyrius [Political Section]

For Polish archives k. – karta [leaf]

211 Bibliography

Archival Sources

Archiwum Akt Nowych [The Central Archives of Modern Records; AAN] MSZ – Ministerwstwo spraw zagranicznych [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

Biblioteka Publiczna m. st. Warszawy, Czytelnia Starych Druków i Rękopisów [Manuscript and Old Books Department of the Public Library of the City of Warsaw] Zbiór: Zarząd cywilny ziem wschodnich [A Collection of Documents of Civil Board of Eastern Lands]

Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos instituto Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Division of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore; LLTI RS] f. 1 – Įvairūs rašytojai ir kalbininkai [Various Writers and Linguists] f. 2 – Jonas Basanavičius f. 22 – Lietuvių mokslo draugija [Lithuanian Scientiﬁ c Society]

Lietuvos centrinis valstybės archyvas [Lithuanian Central State Archive; LCVA] f. 383 – Užsienio reikalų ministerija [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] f. 565 – Vilniaus vadavimo sąjunga [Vilnius Liberation Union] f. 923 – Lietuvos Respublikos Ministrų Kabinetas [Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Lithuania]

Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; LMAVB RS] f. 117 – Leonas Petras f. 138 – Riomerių šeimos aktai [Documents of the Römeris family] f. 178 – Vilniui vaduoti sąjungos fondas [Fund of the Vilnius Liberation Union] f. 183 – Vincas Uždavinys f. 255 – Lietuvių Mokslo draugijos rankraščių rinkinys [Collection of Manuscripts of the Lithuanian Scientiﬁ c Society]

212 Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Division of the Lithuanian Martynas Mažvydas National Library; LNMMB RS] f. 29 – Ivinskis Zenonas

Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas [Lithuanian State Historical Archives; LVIA] f. 378 – Vilniaus generalgubernatoriaus kanceliarija [Chancellery of the Governor General of Vil’na] f. 446 – Vilniaus teismo rūmų prokuroras [Prosecutor, Vil’na Chamber of Justice]

Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas [Lithuanian Special Archives; LYA] f. 77 – Lietuvos komunistų partijos Centro komitetas [Central Committee of the Lithuanian Comunist Party]

Panevėžio apskrities G. Petkevičaitės-Bitės viešoji biblioteka [Panevėžys District G. Petkevičaitė-Bitė Public Library] f. 68 – Motiejaus Lukšio rankraščiai [Motiejus Lukšys Manuscripts]

Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, Sankt Peterburg [Russian State His- torical Archives; RGIA] f. 1284 – Departament obshchikh del MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs, Depart- ment of General Affairs]

Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Department of the Vilnius University Library; VUB RS] f. 1 – Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Bibliotekos rankraščių rinkinys (Lietuvos visuomenės, mokslo ir kultūros veikėjai) [Manuscript Collection of the Vytautas Magnus University Library (Lithuanian Public Figures, Scientists, and Cultural Workers)] f. 129 – Zigmas Žemaitis

Periodicals

XX amžius [20th Century] Aušra [Dawn] Darbininkų balsas [Voice of Workers] Diena [Day] Draugija [Society] Dziennik Wileński [Vilnius Daily] Echo Litwy [Echo of Lithuania] Garsas [Sound] Głos Litwy [Voice of Lithuania] Głos Polski [Voice of Poland] Goniec codzienny [Daily Messenger] Karys [Warrior]

213 Komunistas [Communist] Kurjer Litewski [Lithuanian Messenger] Laisvė [Freedom] Laisvoji Lietuva [Free Lithuania] Letste nayes [The Latest News] Lietuva [Lithuania] Lietuvis [Lithuanian] Lietuviszkasis bałsas [Lithuanian Voice] Lietuvos aidas [Echo of Lithuania] Lietuvos balsas [Voice of Lithuania] Lietuvos laisvė [Freedom of Lithuania] Lietuvos kelias [Lithuanian Road] Lietuvos ūkininkas [Lithuanian Farmer] Lietuvos žinios [Lithuanian News] Litwa Niepodległa [Independent Lithuania] Mūsų kraštas [Our Land] Mūsų Vilnius [Our Vilnius] Nasz Kraj [Our Land] Naujoji Romuva [New Romuva] Nedėldienio skaitymas [Reading for the Day of Rest] Nepriklausoma Lietuva [The Independent Lithuania] Neužmiršk Lietuvos [Do Not Forget Lithuania] Novaia zaria [New Dawn] Nowe Słowo [The New Word] Panevėžio balsas [Panevėžys News] Panevėžio garsas [Sound of Panevėžys] Poslednie izvestiia [The Latest News] Praca [Work] Rygos garsas [Riga Voice] Rytas [Morning] Šaltinis [The Spring] Šiaulietis [Resident of Šiauliai] Šiaulių naujienos [Šiauliai News] Socialdemokratas [Social-democrat] Svobodnoe slovo [Free Word] Tauta [Nation] Tėvynės sargas [Guardian of the Fatherland] Trimitas [Trumpet] Ūkininkas [The Framer] Vairas [The Steering Wheel] Varpas [Bell] Vienybė lietuvininkų [Unity of Lithuanians] Vilniaus aidas [Echo of Vilnius] Vilniaus balsas [Voice of Vilnius] Vilniaus žinios [Vilnius News]

214 Viltis [Hope] Di vokh [Week] Voskhod [Sunrise] Vyriausybės žinios [Government’s News] Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga [Review of the Samogitia and Lithuania] Židinys [Fire-place]

Other Published Sources and Secondary Literature

1917 metams Lietuvos kalendorius [Lithuanian Calendar for 1917], Vilnius 1916 [1917 metams Lietuvos kalendorius]. 33: Vilnius-Kaunas, 1922. I 20-II 5[33: Vilnius-Kaunas, 20 January – 5 February 1922], Kaunas 1922. A. LIETUVIS [MORAVSKIS, STANISLOVAS]: Lietuvos darbininkų judėjimo istorija sąryšy su Lietuvos valstybės atgimimo judėjimu. Pirmas dešimtmetis: 1892-1902 m. m. [History of the Movement of Lithuania’s Workers in Relation to the Rebirth Move- ment of the State of Lithuania. The First Decade: 1892-1902], in: Kultūra 1931, 4, pp. 193-201. ABROMAITIS, AUDRIUS: Lenkija ir Lietuvos visuomenė: požiūriai į Lenkiją Lietuvoje 1918-1940 m. [Poland and Lithuania’s Society. Attitudes towards Poland in Lithua- nia in 1918-1940][Manuscript]: Doctoral thesis, Vilnius 2002, in: LNMMB, f. 132, b. 2418 [ABROMAITIS, Lenkija]. IDEM: Kaip kito požiūris į Lenkiją. Lietuvos viešoji nuomonė 1920-1923 metais [How the Attitude to Poland Changed. Lithuania’s Public Opinion in 1920-1923], in: Dar- bai ir dienos 40 (2004), pp. 213-225 [ABROMAITIS, Kaip]. ALANTAS, VYTAUTAS: Žygiuojanti tauta [The Marching Nation], Kaunas 1940. ALEKSANDRAVIČIUS, EGIDIJUS: Bandymai atgaivinti universitetą Lietuvoje 1832-1918 m. [Attempts to Revive the University in Lithuania], in: IDEM: XIX amžiaus proﬁ l- iai, Vilnius 1993, pp. 149-164. ALSEIKA, DANIELIUS: Vilniaus krašto lietuvių gyvenimas 1919-1934 metais [Life of the Lithuanians of the Vilnius Region in 1919-1934], Vilnius 1935. AMBRAZIEJUS, JUOZAPAS: Visų atydai! Kalvarijos-Verkai labai lengvai šiandien galėtų tapti lietuvių tautos savybė [To Everybody’s Attention! Kalvarijos-Verkiai Could Easily Become a Property of the Lithuanian Nation Today], Vilnius 1908. ANIČAS, JONAS: Petras Vileišis. 1851-1926. Gyvenimo ir veiklos bruožai [Petras Vileišis. 1851-1926. Features of Life and Activity], Vilnius 1993 [ANIČAS, Petras Vileišis]. IDEM: Jonas Vileišis. 1872-1942. Gyvenimo ir veiklos bruožai [Jonas Vileišis. 1872- 1942. Features of Life and Activity], Vilnius 1995 [ANIČAS, Jonas Vileišis]. ANTANAVIČIŪTĖ, RASA: Viešosios Vilniaus erdvės pokariu: sovietinės sostinės kon- stravimas [Vilnius Public Spaces in the Post-war Years: Constructing the Soviet Capital], a report delivered at the Third Congress of Lithuanian Historians on 29 September 2013. Apie lenkų kalbą Lietuvos bažnyčiose. Lietuvių raštas, paduotas Jo Šventenybei Pijui X. Popiežiui ir visiems S. R. katalikų bažnyčios Kardinolams [About the Polish

215 Language in the Churches of Lithuania. An Ofﬁ cial Letter of the Lithuanians Sent to his Holiness Pius X. To the Pope and All Cardinals of the S.R. Catholic Church], Kaunas 1906 [Apie lenkų kalbą]. ASSMANN, ALEIDA: Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, München 1999. B. ŠĖMIS [BIRŽIŠKA, MYKOLAS]: Vilniaus Golgota: okupuotosios Lietuvos lietuvių darbo ir kančių 1919-1928 metų dienoraštis [Golgotha of Vilnius: the 1919-1928 Diary of Work and Sufferings of Lithuanians of Occupied Lithuania], Kaunas 1930 [B. ŠĖMIS [MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA], Vilniaus]. BALKELIS, TOMAS: Modernios Lietuvos kūrimas [Creating Modern Lithuania], Vilnius 2012. Batakių dekanato kunigų susirinkimo nutarimai (1906 m. sausis) [Resolutions of the Meeting of the Priests of the Batakiai Deanery (January 1906)], prepared by R. LAUKAITYTĖ and A. KATILIUS, in: Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studjos, vol. 7: At- gimimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia, Vilnius 1994, pp. 444-452. BENDIKAITĖ, EGLĖ: The Zionist Priorities in the Struggle for Lite, 1916-1918, in: VLA- DAS SIRUTAVIČIUS, DARIUS STALIŪNAS (eds.): Pragmatic Alliance. Jewish-Lithuanian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the 20th Century, Budapest – New York 2011, pp. 159-180. BIELIAUSKAS, PRANAS: Vilniaus dienoraštis (1915-1919) [Vilnius’ Diary (1915-1919)], Trakai 2009. BIELINIS, KIPRAS: 1905 metai. Atsiminimai ir dokumentai [The Year 1905. Memoirs and Documents], Kaunas 1931 [BIELINIS, 1905 metai]. IDEM: Penktieji metai. Revoliucinio sąjūdžio slinktis ir padariniai [The Fifth Year. Advancement and Aftermaths of the Revolutionary Movement], New York 1959 [BIELINIS, Penktieji]. BILLIG, MICHAEL: Banal Nationalism, London 1995. BINKIS, KAZYS –TARULIS, PETRAS: Vilnius, 1323-1923 [Vilnius, 1323-1923], Kaunas 1923. BIRŽIŠKA, MYKOLAS: Apie lietuviškus Vilniaus miesto gatvėvardžius: (dėl J. V. Narbuto Vadovo po Vilnių ir gatvėvardžius) [On Lithuanian Names of the Streets of the City of Vilnius: (Concerning J.V. Narbutas’ Guide to Vilnius and Street Names)], Kaunas 1939 [BIRŽIŠKA, Apie]. IDEM: Lietuvių tautos kelias į naująjį gyvenimą [The Road of the Lithuanian Nation To- ward a New Life], vol.1: Galvojimai apie tautą savyje ir kaimynų tarpe [Thoughts about the Nation within itself and among the Neighbours], Los Angeles 1952 [BIRŽIŠKA, Lietuvių]. IDEM: Dėl mūsų sostinės. (Iš Vilniaus darbo atsiminimų) [For the Sake of Our Capital (From Work Memoirs of Vilnius)], part I: Ligi 1919 m. liepos 1 d .[Until 1 July 1919], London 1960 [BIRŽIŠKA, Dėl]. BLOMEIER, VOLKER: Litauen in der Zwischenkriegszeit. Skizze eines Modernisierungs- konﬂ ikts, Münster 1998 (Arbeiten zur Geschichte Osteuropas, 6). BOĆKOWSKI, DANIEL: Vilnius, netapęs Vakarų Baltarusijos sostine [Vilnius That Has not Become the Capital of Western Belarus], in: Genocidas ir rezistencija 2009, 1, pp. 7-17.

216 BORUTA, MIROSŁAW: Wolni z wolnymi, równi z równymi: Polska i Polacy o nie- podległości wschodnich sąsiadów Rzeczypospolitej [Free with the Free Ones, Equal with the Equal Ones: Poles and Poland about the Independence of Eastern Neighbours of the Republic], Kraków 2002. BRUBAKER, ROGERS: Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge 1996. BUCHOWSKI, KRZYSZTOF: Polacy w niepodległym państwie litewskim 1918-1940 [Poles in the Independent Lithuanian State in 1918-1940], Białystok 1999 [BUCHOWSKI, Polacy]. IDEM: Litwomani i polonizatorzy. Mity, wzjajemne postrzeganie i stereotypy w sto- sunkach polsko-litewskich w pierwszej połowie XX wieku [Litvomans and Polon- isers. Myths, Mutual Perceptions and Stereotypes in Polish-Lithuanian Relations in the First Half of the 20th Century], Białystok 2006 [BUCHOWSKI, Litwomani]. BUMBLAUSKAS, ALFREDAS – LIEKIS, ŠARŪNAS – POTAŠENKO, GRIGORIJUS (eds.): Nauja- sis Vilniaus perskaitymas: didieji Lietuvos istoriniai pasakojimai ir daugiakultūris miesto paveldas [New Reading of Vilnius: Great Historical Narratives of Lithuania and Multicultural Heritage of the City], Vilnius 2009. BŪTĖNAS, JULIUS: Lietuvių teatras Vilniuje [The Lithuanian Theatre in Vilnius], in: Mūsų senovė 1937, 1, pp. 214-236. BUTKUS, STASYS: Vyrai Gedimino kalne: pirmūno ir savanorio kūrėjo prisiminimai [Men on Gediminas Hill: Reminiscences of the Pioneer and Volunteer Creator], Memmingen 1957. BUTKUS, ZENONAS: Attitudes of the Soviet Union and Germany towards the Question of Vilnius between the World Wars, in: Lithuanian Historical Studies 5 (2000), pp. 131-160 [BUTKUS, Attitudes]. IDEM: Vokietijos ir SSRS diplomatinis bendradarbiavimas Baltijos šalyse 1920-1940 m. [Diplomatic Cooperation of Germany and the USSR in the Baltic States in 1920- 1940], in: Genocidas ir rezistencija 2000, 2, pp. 68-72 [BUTKUS, Vokietijos ir SSSR]. IDEM: Wpływ Związku Sowieckiego na politykę antypolską na Litwie [The Impact of the Soviet Union on the Anti-Polish Policy in Lithuania], in: Klio 2005, 6, pp. 101- 123 [BUTKUS, Wpływ]. IDEM: The Impact of the USSR on Lithuania’s Domestic Policy and Its International Orientation in the Third Decade of the Twentieth Century, in: Journal of Baltic Stud- ies 38 (2007), 2, pp. 215-233 [BUTKUS, The Impact]. IDEM: Vokietijos ir sovietų politikos poveikis Baltijos sąjungos kūrimui 1919-1940 metais [The Impact of the German and Soviet Policy on the Creation of the Baltic Union in 1919-1940], in: Lietuvos istorijos studijos 20 (2007), pp. 21-41 [BUTKUS, Vokietijos ir sovietų]. IDEM: Federalizmo idėjų recepcija Lietuvoje 1918-1922 metais [Perception of the Ideas of Federalism in Lithuania in 1918-1922], in: ALFREDAS BUMBLAUSKAS, GRIGORIJUS POTAŠENKO (eds.): Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naraty- vai, Vilnius 2009, pp. 213-223 [BUTKUS, Federalizmo]. ČERNIAUSKAITĖ, VIOLETA: Atgimusios lietuviškos spaudos tradicijos Vilniuje 1904- 1914 metais [Traditions of the Reborn Lithuanian Press in Vilnius in 1904-1914], in: Knygotyra 44 (2005), pp. 114-130.

217 COLIN, WILLIAMS – SMITH, ANTHONY: The National Construction of Social Space, in: Progress in Human Geography 7 (1983), pp. 502-518. CZUBIŃSKI, ANTONI: Walka Józefa Piłsudskiego o nowy kształt polityczny Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w latach 1918-1921 [Józef Piłsudski’s Struggle for the New Political Arrangement of Central Eastern Europe in 1918-1921], Toruń 2002. DĄBROWSKI, PRZEMYSŁAW: Narodowa Demokracja byłego Wielkiego Księstwa Lite- wskiego. Studium z zakresu myśli politycznej i działalności obozu narodowego na ziemiach litewsko-białoruskich w latach 1897-1918 [National Democracy of the Former Lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Study of the Political Thought and Activity of the Camp of the Nationalists in Lithuanian-Belarusian Lands in 1897- 1918], Kraków 2010. [DAMBRAUSKAS, ALEKSANDRAS]: Głos Litwinów do młodej generacji magnatów, oby- wateli i szlachty na Lytwie [Voice of Lithuanians to the Young Generation of Mag- nates, Gentry and Szlachta in Lithuania], [Tilžė 1902] [[DAMBRAUSKAS], Głos]. IDEM: Iš Kauno kronikos [From Kaunas Chronicle], in: Mūsų senovė 1 (1921), 2, pp. 39-52 [DAMBRAUSKAS, Iš Kauno]. DAUGIRDAITĖ, SOLVEIGA: Vilnius jaunųjų “škočių” akimis [Vilnius Through the Eyes of the Young “Scot Girls”], in: ALMA LAPINSKIENĖ (ed.): Vilniaus kultūrinis gyvenimas: moterų indėlis 1900-1945, Vilnius 2005, pp. 162-179. DAVOLIŪTĖ, VIOLETA: The Making and Breaking of Soviet Lithuania, London – New York 2013 [DAVOLIŪTĖ, The Making]. IDEM: Postwar Reconstruction and the Imperial Sublime in Vilnius During Late Stalin- ism, in: Ab Imperio, 2014, 1, pp. 176-203 [DAVOLIŪTĖ, Postwar]. Drugi powszechny spis ludności z dn. 9.XII.1931 r. Województwo Wileńskie [The Sec- ond Population Census of 9 December 1931, Voivodshaft of Vilnius], Warszawa 1936 [Drugi, Województwo Wileńskie]. Drugi powszechny spis ludności z dn. 9.XII.1931 r. Miasto Wilno [The Second Pop- ulation Census of 9 December 1931, The City of Vilnius], Warszawa 1937 [Drugi, Miasto Wilno]. DZŪKAS VARĖNIS [UŽDAVINYS, VINCAS]: Išniekinti kryžiai: Vilniaus pagrobimo 14 m. [Desecrated Crosses: 14 Years of Vilnius’ Seizure], Kaunas 1934. EBERHARDT, PIOTR: Polska i jej granice. Z historii polskiej geograﬁ i politycznej [Poland and Its Borders. From the History of Political Geography], Lublin 2004. EIDINTAS, ALFONSAS – LOPATA, RAIMUNDAS (eds.): Lietuvos Valstybės Tarybos pro- tokolai [Protocols of the State Council of Lithuania], Vilnius 1991. FISHMAN, DAVID E.: Tautiniai žydų simboliai Vilniuje [Jewish National Symbols in Vil- nius], in: ALVYDAS NIKŽENTAITIS (ed.): Nuo Basanavičiaus, Vytauto Didžiojo iki Molotovo ir Ribentropo. Atminties ir atminimo kultūrų transformacijos XX-XXI amžiuje, Vilnius 2011, pp. 157-170. FRANÇOIS, ETIENNE – SIEGRIST, HANNES – VOGEL, JAKOB (eds): Nation und Emotion. Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich; 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1995. FROMAS, ALEKSANDRAS (GUŽUTIS): Gedimino sapnas [Gediminas’ Dream], Ryga 1910. GABRYS, JUOZAS: Geograﬁ jos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai [Textbook on Geography for a Lithuanian School], Tilsit – Paris 1910.

218 GAIDYS, ARVYDAS: Lietuvių katalikų draugijų bruožai 1905-1907 m. [Features of Lith- uanian Catholic Societies in 1905-1907], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studijos, vol. 7: Atgimimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia, Vilnius 1994, pp. 254-316. GAIGALAITĖ, ALDONA: Lietuva Paryžiuje 1919 metais [Lithuania in Paris in 1919], Kau- nas 1999. GAIŽUTIS, VLADAS: Vilniaus reikšmė Lietuvai [Signiﬁ cance of Vilnius to Lithuania], Kaunas 1929. GAŁĘDEK, MICHAŁ: Ustrój administracji ogólnej na Wileńszczyźnie w okresie między- wojennym [General Systems of Administration of the Vilnius Region during the Inter-war Period], Gdańsk 2012. GALVA, GEDIMINAS: Ernestas Galvanauskas. Politinė biograﬁ ja [Ernestas Galvanaus- kas. Political Biography], Chicago 1982. GIEROWSKĄ- KAŁŁAUR, JOANNA: Zarząd Cywilny Ziem Wschodnich (19 lutego 1919 – 9 września 1920) [Civil Board of Eastern Lands (19 February 1919 – 9 September 1920], Warszawa 2003. GIMŽAUSKAS, EDMUNDAS: Baltarusių veiksnys formuojantis Lietuvos valstybei 1915- 1923 m. [The Factor of the Belarusians in Forming of the Lithuanian State in 1915- 1923], Vilnius 2003. IDEM – SVARAUSKAS, ARTŪRAS: Lietuvos ir Lenkijos santykiai: nuo Pirmojo pasaulinio karo pabaigos iki L. Żeligowskio įvykdyto Vilniaus užėmimo (1918 m. lapkritis – 1920 m. spalis): dokumentų rinkinys [Lithuanian-Polish Relations: from the End of the First World War to the Occupation of Vilnius Carried Out by Lucjan Żeligowski (November 1918 – October 1920). A Collection of Documents], Vilnius 2012. GIRDZIJAUSKAS, JUOZAS: Maironio eilėraščio “Lietuva brangi” genezė [Genesis of Mai- ronis’ poema “Lietuva brangi” [My Dear Lithuania]], in: Archivum Lithuanicum 4 (2002), pp. 145-158. Gistoryia belaruskai dziarzhaunastsi u kantsy XVIII – pachatku XXI st. [The History of the Statehood of Belarus from the End of the 18th to the Beginning of the 21st Century], vol. 1, Minsk 2011 [Gistoryia belaruskai]. Gistoryia Belarusi u 6 t. [History of Belarus in 6 Volumes], vol. 5: Belarus’ 1917-1945 gg. [Belarus in 1917-1945], Minsk 2006 [Gistoryia Belarusi, vol. 5]. GÓRSKI, TADEUSZ: Błogosławiony Jerzy Matulewicz [The Blessed Jurgis Matulaitis], Warszawa 2005. GRIGARAVIČIUS, ALGIRDAS – SIRUTAVIČIUS, VLADAS: Neįgyvendinta idėja: lietuvių “Tautos namai” Vilniuje [The Unrealised Idea: Lithuanian House of the Nation in Vilnius], in: Kultūros barai 1998, no. 10, pp. 82-89. GRIGARAVIČIŪTĖ, SANDRA: Lietuvos konsulato Vilniuje steigimo aplinkybės (1938- 1939 m.) [Circumstances of Founding the Consulate of Lithuania in Vilnius (1938- 1939)], in: Lituanistica 57 (2011), 3, pp. 262-274 [GRIGARAVIČIŪTĖ, Lietuvos konsulato]. IDEM: Lietuvos generalinis konsulatas Vilniuje (1939 m. rugsėjis – spalis) [The General Consulate of Lithuania in Vilnius (September – October 1939)], in: Lituanistica 59 (2013), 3, pp. 158-174 [GRIGARAVIČIŪTĖ, Lietuvos generalinis]. GRINIUS, KAZYS: Atsiminimai ir mintys [Memoirs and Ideas], vol. 1, Tübingen 1947 [GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 1].

219 IDEM: Atsiminimai ir mintys [Memoirs and Thoughts], vol. 2, Chicago 1962 [GRINIUS, Atsiminimai, vol. 2]. GRUŠAS, JUOZAS: Karjeristai [Careerists], Vilnius 1957. GUDAITIS, LEONAS: Platėjantys akiračiai. Lietuvių literatūrinė spauda 1904-1917 metais [Broadening Horizons. Lithuanian Literary Press in 1904-1917], Vilnius 1977. GUMULIAUSKAS, ARŪNAS: Dar kartą Vilniaus klausimu [Once Again About the Issue of Vilnius], in: Istorija 70 (2008), pp. 53-59. HEIN, HEIDI: Der Piłsudski-Kult und seine Bedeutung für den polnischen Staat 1926- 1939, Marburg 2002 (Materialien und Studien zur Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung, 9). HERBAČEVSKIS, JUOZAPAS: Kur eini, lietuvi? [Where Are You Going, Lithuanian?], Vil- nius 1919 [HERBACZEWSKI, Kur]. IDEM [HERBACZEWSKI, JÓZEF ALBIN]: Litwa a Polska. Rozważania na czasie [Lithuania and Poland. Considerations up to Date], Vilnius 1921 [HERBACZEWSKI, Litwa]. IDEM [HERBACZEWSKI, JÓZEF ALBIN]: O Wilno i nie tylko Wilno [About Vilnius and Not Only About Vilnius], Vilnius 1922 [HERBACZEWSKI, O Wilno]. IOFFE, EMANUIL: Ot Miasnikova do Malofeeva. Kto rukovodil BSSR [From Miasnikov to Malofejev. Who Ruled the Belarusian SSR], Minsk 2008. IVANOU, MIKHAIL: Prablema prynalezhnastsi Vilni i belaruskae natsyianal’nae pytanne u 1939 [The Problem of Vilnius Jurisdiction and the Issue of the Belarusian Nation in 1939], in: Beloruski gistarychny chasopis 1994, 1, pp. 32-38 [IVANOU, Prablema]. IDEM: Sprawa przynależności Wilna i problemy narodowościowe na Białorusi [The Issue of Vilnius Jurisdiction and National Problems in Belarus], in: Społeczeńst- wo białoruskie, litewskie i polskie na ziemiach północno-wschodnich II Rzeczy- pospolitej (Białoruś Zachodnia i Litwa Wschodnia) w latach 1939-1941, Warszawa 1995, pp. 85-92 [IVANOU, Sprawa]. JANAUSKAS, GIEDRIUS: Jėga nėra teisė [Force Is not Law], in: Darbai ir dienos 30 (2002), pp. 93-120. JANAUSKAS, PRANAS: Istorinė byla: POW narių teismas Kaune 1920 metais [Historical Case: Trial of POW Members in Kaunas in 1920], Kaunas 2005. JANUSZEWSKA-JURKIEWICZ, JOANNA: Stosunki narodowościowe na Wileńszczyźnie w latach 1920-1939 [National Relations in the Vilnius Region in 1920-1939], Kato- wice 2011. JONAS B. BIRŠTONAS [BASANAVIČIUS, JONAS]: Vilnius lietuvių dainose [Vilnius in Lith- uanian Songs], Vilnius 1925. JURGINIS, JUOZAS – MERKYS, VYTAUTAS – TAUTAVIČIUS, ADOLFAS: Vilniaus miesto istorija nuo seniausių laikų iki Spalio revoliucijos [History of the City of Vilnius from the Olden Times to the October Revolution], Vilnius 1968. [JUŠKYTĖ, JADVYGA]: Vaikų skaitymeliai su Lietuvos žemėlapiu [Children’s Reading with Lithuania’s Map], Vilnius 1905. K. GUDAS [DUŽ–DUŠAUSKAS, KLAUDIJUS]: Gudai ir Vilnius [Belarusians and Vilnius], Kaunas 1934. KAIRIŪKŠTYTĖ, NASTAZIJA: Vilniaus vadavimo sąjunga [Vilnius Liberation Union], Vil- nius 2001. KAPSUKAS, VINCAS: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 10, Vilnius 1971 [KAPSUKAS, Raštai, vol. 10].

220 IDEM: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 12, Vilnius 1978 [KAPSUKAS, Raštai, vol. 12]. KARČIAUSKAITĖ, INDRĖ: Įtampos, baimės, neapykantos pulsas. Lietuvos Respublika lenkiškoje Vilniaus spaudoje (1922-1923) [The Pulse of Tension, Fear, Hatred. The Republic of Lithuania in the Polish Vilnius Press], in: Darbai ir dienos 40 (2004), pp. 191-199. KASPARAVIČIUS, ALGIMANTAS: Didysis X Lietuvos užsienio politikoje: 1926 metų Li- etuvos ir Sovietų Sąjungos nepuolimo sutarties sudarymo analizė [The Great X in the Lithuanian Foreign Policy: the Analysis of Concluding the 1926 Non-aggression Pact between Lithuania and the Soviet Union], Vilnius 1996 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Didysis]. IDEM: Gudų korta Kauno ir Maskvos diplomatiniame žaidime 1920-1925 metais [The Belarusians’ Card in the Diplomatic Game of Kaunas and Moscow], in: Lituanistica 1997, 1, pp. 3-27 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Gudų]. IDEM: Polacy czy spolonizowani litwini. Spojzrenie z Kowna na mieszkańców Wilna i Wileńcszczyzny 1939-1944 [Poles or Polonised Lithuanians. Kaunas’ Attitude To- wards the Lithuanians of Vilnius and the Vilnius Region], in: Granice i pogranicza: historia codzienności i doświadczeń 2 (1999), pp. 154-160 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Pola- cy]. IDEM: Molotovo/Ribbentropo slaptųjų protokolų prielaidos ir ištakos (1922-1932) [Pre- conditions and Sources of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Secret Protocols (1922-1932)], in: Genocidas ir rezistencija 2000, 2, pp. 73-88 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Molotovo]. IDEM: Don Kichotas prieš Prometėją. Tarpukario lietuvių – lenkų iracionalioji diplomatija [Don Quixote against Prometheus. The Irrational Polish-Lithuanian Diplo- macy in the Inter-war Period], in: Darbai ir dienos 30 (2002), pp. 49-72 [KASPARA- VIČIUS, Don Kichotas]. IDEM: Alternatyvos ginklui. Tautininkai ir “Vidurio Lietuva” [Alternatives to a Weapon. Nationalists and “Middle Lithuania”], in: Darbai ir dienos 40 (2004), pp. 227-236 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Alternatyvos]. IDEM: Tarp politikos ir diplomatijos: Šventasis Sostas ir Lietuvos Respublika [Between Politics and Diplomacy: the Holy See and the Republic of Lithuania], Vilnius 2008 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Tarp]. IDEM: Lietuva 1938-1939 m. Neutraliteto iliuzijos [Lithuania in 1938-1939. Illusions of Neutrality], Vilnius 2010 [KASPARAVIČIUS, Lietuva]. IDEM: Dvi tautos istorijos ir emocijų nelaisvėje. Lietuvos-Lenkijos santykiai tarpukaryje [Two Nations in the Captivity of History and Emotions. Lithuanian-Polish Relations during the Inter-war Period], in: URL: http://kulturaenter.pl/dvi-tautos-istorijos-ir-emociju-nelaisveje-lietuvos-lenkijos-santykiai-tarpukaryje/2011/02/ [02.07.2014] [KASPARAVIČIUS, Dvi]. IDEM – LAURINAVIČIUS, ČESLOVAS – LEBEDEVA, NATALIJA (eds.): SSSR i Litva v gody Vtoroi mirovoj voiny. Sbornik dokumentov [The USSR and Lithuania during the Second World War. A Collection of Documents], vol. 1: SSSR i Litovskaia Respub- lika (mart 1939 – avgust 1940) [The USSR and the Republic of Lithuania (Septem- ber 1939 – August 1940)], Vilnius 2006.

221 IDEM – LIBERA, PAWEŁ: Lietuvos ir Lenkijos diplomatiniai santykiai 1938-1940 metais: dokumentų rinkinys [Lithuanian-Polish Diplomatic Relations in 1938-1940: A Col- lection of Documents], Vilnius 2013. KHOMICH, SERGEI: Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi w XX veke: ot neza- vershennoi etnicheskoi samoidentifi katsii i vneshnepoliticheskogo proizvola k sovremennomu status quo [Territory and the State Borders in Belarus in the 20th Century: from Unfi nished Ethnic Self-identifi cation and External Self-will to the Contemporary Status Quo], Minsk 2011. KIRKOR, ADAM HONORY: Kapai didziu kunigaikščių ir karalių Vilniuje [Graves of Grand Dukes and Kings in Vilnius], Tilžė 1898. KLIMAS, PETRAS: Dienoraštis, 1915.X11.1-1919.1.19: pradedamas P. Bugailiškio užrašais 1915.V111.23(10)-X.13 [Diary, 1 December 1915 – 19 January 1919: Be- gun with P. Bugailiškis’ Notes 23 (10) August – 13 October 1915], Chicago 1988. KLIMECKI, MICHAŁ: Lucjano Żeligowskio karinė akcija [Lucjan Żeligowski’s Military Campaign], in: Darbai ir dienos 40 (2004), pp. 71-78. KOLARZ, BEATA: Ustrój Litwy Środkowej w latach 1920-1922 [State System of Middle Lithuania in 1920-1922], Gdańsk 2004. KRAJEWSKI, ZENON: Geneza i dzieje wewnętrzne Litwy Środkowej (1920-1922) [Gene- sis of Middle Lithuania and Its Internal History (1920-1922)], Lublin 1996. KVIETKAUSKAS, MINDAUGAS: Vilniaus literatūrų kontrapunktai. Ankstyvasis moder- nizmas 1904-1915 [Counterpoints of Literatures of Vilnius. Early Modernism 1904- 1915], Vilnius 2007. Kwestya Litewska w prasie polskiej [The Lithuanian Question in the Polish Press], Warszawa 1905. LADYSEU, ULADIMIR (ed.): Belaruskaia natsyia: uaz’iadnane, verasen’ 1939 g. – cher- ven’ 1941 g.: Zbornik dakumentau i materyialau [Belarusian Nation: Unifi cation, September 1939 – June 1941: A Collection of Documents and Sources], Minsk 2004. LAPINSKIENĖ, ALMA: Vilniaus lietuvių literatūra 1920-1940 [Literature of the Vilnius Lithuanians in 1920-1940], Vilnius 2008. LAUČKAITĖ, LAIMA: Vilniaus sostapilis kaip miesto ikona XX amžiaus pradžioje [The Castle of the Capital as the Icon of the City at the Beginning of the 20th Century], in: Naujasis židinys-Aidai 2009, 7, pp. 225-231. LAUKAITYTĖ, REGINA: Legalios katalikiškos spaudos pradžia Lietuvoje [The Beginning of the Legal Catholic Press in Lithuania], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studijos, vol. 7: Atgimimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia, Vilnius 1994, pp. 220-253. LAURINAVIČIUS, ČESLOVAS: Lietuvos-Sovietų Rusijos taikos sutartis: 1920 m. liepos 12 d. sutarties problema [Soviet-Lithuanian Peace Treaty: The Problem of the Treaty of 12 July 1920)], Vilnius 1992 [LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietuvos]. IDEM: Politika ir diplomatija. Lietuvos tautinės valstybės tapsmo ir raidos fragmentai [Policy and Diplomacy. Fragments of the Formation and Development of the Lithu- anian Nation State], Kaunas 1997 [LAURINAVIČIUS, Politika ir diplomatija]. IDEM: Kodėl abejota, bijota ir atsiribota? Lietuvos Vyriausybės požiūris į Vidurio Lietu- vos problemą [Why Doubted, Feared and Dissociated? The Government’s Attitude

222 to the Problem of Middle Lithuania], in: Darbai ir dienos 40 (2004), pp. 253-260 [LAURINAVIČIUS, Kodėl]. IDEM: Litewska polityka narodowościowa na Wileńszczyźnie w latach 1939-1940 [Lithuania’s Nationality Policy in the Vilnius Region in 1939-1940], in: Stosunki etnicznie podczas wojny i okupacji. Białystok i Wilno 1939-1941 – 1944/45, Bi- ałystok 2011, pp. 33-64 [LAURINAVIČIUS, Litewska]. IDEM (ed.): Lietuvos istorija [History of Lithuania], vol. 10, Part 1: Nepriklausomybė (1918-1940 m.) [Independence (1918-1940)], Vilnius 2013 [LAURINAVIČIUS, Lietu- vos]. LENIN, VLADIMIR: Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [The Collected Works], vol. 24: Sentiabr’ 1913 – mart 1914 [September 1913 – March 1914], Moskva 1961. LESČIUS, VYTAUTAS: Lietuvos kariuomenė 1918-1920 [The Lithuanian Army in 1918- 1920], Vilnius 1998. LEWANDOWSKA, STANISŁAWA: Losy wilnian: zapis rzeczywistości okupacyjnej: ludzie, fakty, wydarzenia, 1939-1945 [Fates of the Residents of Vilnius: Entry of Occupa- tion Reality: People, Facts, Events, 1939-1945], Warszawa 2004. LEWANDOWSKI, JÓZEF: Federalizm. Litwa i Białoruś w polityce obozu belwederskiego (XI 1918 – IV 1920) [Federalism. Lithuania and Belarus in the Policy of Belvedere Camp (November 1918 – April 1920)], Warszawa 1962. LIEKIS, ŠARŪNAS: A State within a State? Jewish Autonomy in Lithuania 1918-1925, Vilnius 2003 [LIEKIS, A State]. IDEM: 1939. The Year That Changed Everything in Lithuania’s History, Amsterdam – New York 2010 [LIEKIS, 1939]. Lietuva vokiečių okupacijoje Pirmojo pasaulinio karo metais, 1915-1918: Lietuvos ne- priklausomos valstybės genezė. Dokumentų rinkinys [Lithuania under the German Occupation During the First World War in 1915-1918: Genesis of the Independent Lithuanian State. A Collection of Documents], Vilnius 2006. Lietuvos komunistų partijos istorijos apybraiža [The Outline of the History of the Lith- uanian Communist Party], vol. 1, Vilnius 1971. Lietuvos valstybės konstitucijos [Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania], Vilnius 1989. LIUTSIK, ZMICER: “Belaruski Front”. Vaiskovaia aperatsyia Chyrvonoi Armii u Zak- hodniai Belarusi (verasen’ 1939) [“Belarusian Front”. A Military Operation of the Red Army in Western Belarus (September 1939)], in: Arche 8 (2009), pp. 162-220. LOPATA, RAIMUNDAS: Lietuvos valstybingumo raida 1914-1918 metais [The Develop- ment of Lithuania’s Statehood in 1914-1918], Vilnius 1996 (Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos Studijos, 9). ŁOSSOWSKI, PIOTR: Stosunki polsko-litewskie 1918-1920 [Polish-Lithuanian Relations in 1918-1920], Warszawa 1966 [ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1918-1920]. IDEM: Litwa a sprawy polskie 1939-1940 [Lithuania and Polish Affairs in 1939-1940], Warszawa 1982 [ŁOSSOWSKI, Litwa]. IDEM: Stosunki polsko-litewskie 1921-1939 [Polish-Lithuanian Relations in 1921- 1939], Warszawa 1997 [ŁOSSOWSKI, Stosunki 1921-1939].

223 IDEM: Ultimatum polskie do Litwy 17 marca 1938 roku: studium z dziejów dyplomacji [Poland’s Ultimatum to Lithuania of 17 March 1938: Study from the History of Diplomacy], Warszawa 2010 [ŁOSSOWSKI, Ultimatum]. MAIRONIS [MAČIULIS, JONAS]: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 1, Vilnius 1987 [MAI- RONIS [MAČIULIS], Raštai, vol. 1]. IDEM: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 2, Vilnius 1988 [MAIRONIS [MAČIULIS], Raštai, vol. 2]. MAKARIŪNIENĖ, PRANĖ: Vilniuje ir Vilniaus krašte 1915-1939 metais [In Vilnius and Vilnius Region in 1915-1939], Vilnius 1999. MAKAUSKAS, BRONIUS: Vilnijos lietuviai 1920-1939 metais [Lithuanians of Vilnius Re- gion in 1920-1939], Vilnius 1991. MAKNYS, VYTAUTAS: Lietuvių teatro raidos bruožai [Features of the Development of the Lithuanian Theatre], Vilnius 1972. MALYKHINA, LIUDMILA – MIKHNIUK, U.: Gistaryiagraﬁ ia Litouska-Belaruskai SSR [Historiography on Lithuanian-Belarusian SSR], Minsk 2005. MANČINSKAS, ČESLOVAS: Aukštasis mokslas Lietuvoje 1918-1940 metais [Higher Edu- cation in Lithuania in 1918-1940], Vilnius 1996. MARSZAŁEK, ANTONI: Polskie projekty federacji Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w latach 1890-1950 [Polish Projects of the Federation of Central East Europe in 1890- 1950], Łódź 2008. MASTIANICA, OL’GA: Proizvodstvo i reprezentatsiia “svoego” prostranstva v beloruss- kom natsional’nom diskurse nachala XX veka [Creation of one’s own “Space” and Representation in the National Belarusian Discourse at the Beginning of the 20th Century] (manuscript), Vilnius 2015. MATULAITIS, JURGIS: Užrašai [Notes], Vilnius 1998. MATULAITIS, STASYS: Atsiminimai ir kiti kūriniai [Memoirs and Other Works], Vilnius 1957. MERKYS, VYTAUTAS: Razvitie promyshlennosti i formirovanie proletariata Litvy v XIX v. [Development of Industry and Formation of the Proletariat in Lithuania in the 19th C.], Vilnius 1969 [MERKYS, Razvitie]. IDEM: Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798-1918 m. [National Relations in Vilnius Diocese in 1798-1918], Vilnius 2006 [MERKYS, Tautiniai]. MIKAILIENĖ, ŽIVILĖ: Soviet Vilnius: Ideology and the Formation of Identity, in: Lithua- nian Historical Studies 15 (2010), pp. 171-189 [MIKALIENĖ, Soviet]. Idem: Kultūrinės atminties raiška Vilniuje sovietmečiu: tarp lietuviškumo ir sovietiš- kumo [The Expression of the Cultural Memory in Vilnius during the Soviet Period: Between Lithuanianness and Sovietness], in: ALVYDAS NIKŽENTAITIS (ed.): Atmint- ies daugiasluoksniškumas: miestas, valstybė, regionas, Vilnius 2013, pp. 199-215 [MIKAILIENĖ, Kultūrinės]. MIKNYS, RIMANTAS: P. Višinskis ir Lietuvos nepriklausomybės idėja [Višinskis and the Idea of Lithuania’s Independence], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.-XX a. pradžia), Vilnius 1991, pp. 133-137 [MIK- NYS, P. Višinskis]. IDEM: Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904-1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projek- tai [Vilnius Autonomists and their 1904-1905 Projects of Lithuania’s Political Au-

224 tonomy], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.-XX a. pradžia), Vilnius 1991, pp. 173-198 [MIKNYS, Vilniaus]. IDEM: Lietuvos demokratų partija 1902-1915 metais [Democratic Party of Lithuania in 1902-1915], Vilnius 1995 (Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, 10) [MIKNYS, Lietuvos]. IDEM: Vilnius and the Problem of Modern Lithuanian Statehood in the Early Twentieth Century, in: Lithuanian Historical Studies 2, 1997, pp. 108-120 [MIKNYS, Vilnius]. MILERYTĖ, GIEDRĖ: Bandymai tartis: Vyriausiojo Lietuvos išlaisvinimo komiteto ir Lenkijos egzilinės vyriausybės santykiai 1945-1947 m. [Attempts to Negotiate: Re- lationship of Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania and Polish Gov- ernment in Exile 1945-1947], in: ANDŽEJ PUKŠTO, GIEDRĖ MILERYTĖ (eds.): Lietuva ir Lenkija XX amžiaus geopolitinėje vaizduotėje, Kaunas 2012, pp. 199-222. MIŁOSZ, CZESŁAW: Wyrosłem w tym mieście [I Grew Up in That City], in: Lithuania 2001, 1, pp. 158-155. MIŠKINIS, PETRAS: Lietuvos ir Lenkijos santykių tarptautiniai teisiniai aspektai (1919- 1939) [International Legal Aspects of Lithuanian-Polish Relations (1919-1939)], Vilnius 1976. MITKIEWICZ, LEON: Kauno atsiminimai (1938-1939) [Reminiscences of Kaunas (1938- 1939)], Vilnius 2002. MITRULEVIČIUS, GINTARAS: Socialdemokratai Lietuvos valstybingumo (at)kūrimo idė- jos atgimimo procese (XIX a. pabaiga – 1918 m.) [Social Democrats in the Process of the Rebirth of the Idea of the Re-establishment of Lithuania’s Statehood (The End of the 19th c. – 1918)], in: Gairės 2 (2008), pp. 35-44. MOSSE, GEORGE L.: The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany from the Napoleonic Wars through the Third Reich, New York 1975. MOTIEKA, EGIDIJUS: Didysis Vilniaus seimas [The Great Seimas of Vilnius], Vilnius 1996 (Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studijos, 11). MUSTEIKIS, KAZYS: Prisiminimų fragmentai [Fragments of Reminiscences], Vilnius 1989. NARBUTAS, JONAS VYTAUTAS: Anapus linijos [Beyond the Line], Kaunas 1936 [NARBU- TAS, Anapus]. IDEM: Vadovas po Vilnių [A Guide to Vilnius], Kaunas 1939 [NARBUTAS, Vadovas]. NARUŠIENĖ, VAIVA: Józef Albin Herbaczewski: pisarz polsko-litewski [Józef Albin Herbaczewski: Polish-Lithuanian Writer], Kraków 2007. Neužmiršk Lietuvos [Do Not Forget Lithuania], Kaunas 1927. NIKŽENTAITIS, ALVYDAS: Vilnius kaip simbolinė keturių tautų sostinė [Vilnius as the Symbolic Capital of Four Nations], in: IDEM (ed.): Atminties daugiasluoksnišku- mas: Miestas, valstybė, regionas, Vilnius, 2013, pp. 217-227. NORVAIŠA, N.: Siekiant Vilniaus … , 1928 m. Vasario 16. 10 metų Lietuvos Nepriklau- somybės sukaktuvėms paminėti [Seeking for Vilnius ..., to Commemorate the 10th Anniversary of Lithuania’s Independence on 16 February 1928], Kaunas 1928. NOWAK, ANDRZEJ: Historie politycznych tradycji. Piłsudski, Putin i inni [Histories of Political Traditions. Piłsudski, Putin and Others], Kraków 2007 [NOWAK, Historie].

225 IDEM: Polska i trzy Rosje. Studium polityki wschodniej Józefa Piłsudskiego [Poland and Three Russias. Józef Piłsudski’s Eastern Policy Study], Kraków 2008 [NOWAK, Polska]. NYKA-NILIŪNAS, ALFONSAS: Dienoraščio fragmentai 1938-1975 [Fragments from the Diary of 1938-1975], Vilnius 2002. OBST, JAN: Polska i Litwa [Poland and Lithuania], Vilnius 1912. OCHMAŃSKI, JERZY: Litewski ruch narodowo-kulturalny w XIX wieku (do 1890 r.) [Lithuanian National-Cultural Movement in the 19th Century (until 1890)], Białystok 1965. P. V IEŠTAUTAS [KRAUJALIS, PETRAS]: Lietuvių švietimo draugija ‘Rytas’ [The Lithuani- an Educational Society ‘Rytas’], Vilnius 1927. PAKŠTAS, KAZYS: Baltijos Respublikų politinė geograﬁ ja [Political Geography of the Baltic Republics], Kaunas 1929. Pamatykime Lietuvą! [Let us See Lithuania!], Kaunas 1930. PAPEČKYS, JUOZAS: P.O.W. (Polska Organizacja Wojskowa) Lietuvoje [Polish Military Organization in Lithuania], Kaunas 1936 [PAPEČKYS, P.O.W.]. IDEM: Vilniaus problemos esmė [Essence of the Problem of Vilnius], Kaunas 1937 [PA- PEČKYS, Vilniaus]. PAULAUSKAS, HENRIKAS: Lietuvos kariuomenės brigados generolas ministras pirmininkas Jonas Černius [Brigadier General of the Lithuanian Army Prime Minister Jo- nas Černius], Vilnius 2006. PETRONIS, VYTAUTAS: Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800-1914, Stockholm 2007. PORTER, BRIAN A.: Who is a Pole and Where is Poland? Territory and Nation in the Rhetoric of Polish National Democracy before 1905, in: Slavic Review 51 (1992), 4, pp. 639-653. Programas Lietuviškos Soacial-demokratiškos Partijos [Program of the Lithuanian So- cial-Democratic Party], n.p., 1896. PUIDA, KAZYS: Geležinis vilkas [The Iron Wolf], Kaunas 1927. PUKSZTO, ANDRZEJ: Między stołecznością a partykularyzmem. Wielonarodowościowe Wilno w latach 1915-1920 [Multinational Vilnius Society between the Capital and Province in 1915-1920], Toruń 2006. RAŠTIKIS, STASYS: Kovose dėl Lietuvos: kario atsiminimai [Fights for Lithuania: A Sol- dier’s Reminiscences], vol. 1, Vilnius 1990. RĖMERIS, M. [RÖMERIS, MYKOLAS]: Lietuvos konstitucinės teisės paskaitos [Lectures on Constitutional Law of Lithuania], Vilnius 1990 [RĖMERIS, Lietuvos]. RIMOŠIUS [SAVICKIS, JURGIS]: Kelionės [Journeys], vol. 2, Kaunas 1938 [RIMOŠIUS [SAVICKIS], Kelionės]. ROMAN, WANDA KRYSTYNA: Konspiracja polska na Litwie i Wileńszczyźnie: wrzesień 1939 – czerwiec 1941: lista aresztowanych [Polish Conspiracy in Lithuania and the Vilnius Region: August 1939 – June 1941: the List of the Arrested People], Toruń 2002 [ROMAN, Konspiracja]. IDEM: Działalność niepodległościowa żołnierzy polskich na Litwie i Wileńszczyźnie, wrzesień 1939 r. – czerwiec 1941 r. [Struggle of the Polish Soldiers for Independ-

226 ence in Lithuania and the Vilnius Region in September 1939 – June 1941], Piotrków Trybunalski 2003 [ROMAN, Działalność]. RÖMER, MICHAŁ [RÖMERIS, MYKOLAS]: Stosunki etnograﬁ czno-kulturalne na Litwie [Ethnographic-Cultural Relations in Lithuania], Kraków 1906 [RÖMER, Stosunki]. IDEM: Lietuva karo akivaizdoje [Lithuania in the Face of War], in: Baltos lankos 3 (1993), pp. 203-227 [RÖMER, Lietuva karo akivaizdoje]. RÖMERIS, MYKOLAS: “Dienoraščio” fragmentai [Fragments of the “Diary”], in: Lithua- nia 2001, 1, pp. 51-66 [RÖMERIS, “Dienoraščio”]. IDEM: Lietuva. Studija apie lietuvių tautos atgimimą [Lithuania. Studies on the History of the Rebirth of Lithuanians], Vilnius 2005 [RÖMERIS, Lietuva]. IDEM: Dienoraštis: 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji [Diary: 13 June 1918 – 20 June 1919], Vilnius 2007 [RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1918 m. birželio 13-oji – 1919 m. birželio 20-oji]. IDEM: Dienoraštis: 1919 m. birželio 21-oji – 1920 m. kovo 15-oji [Diary: 13 June 1918 – 20 June 1919], Vilnius 2009 [RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1919 m. birželio 21-oji – 1920 m. kovo 15-oji]. IDEM, Dienoraštis: 1920 m. kovo 16-oji – 1921 m. sausio 12-oji [Diary: 16 March 1920 – 12 January 1921], Vilnius 2011 [RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1920 m. kovo 16-oji – 1921 m. sausio 12-oji]. IDEM: Dienoraštis: 1921 m. lapkričio 8-oji – 1922 m. birželio 15-oji [Diary: 8 Novem- ber 1921 – 15 June 1922], Vilnius 2013 [RÖMERIS, Dienoraštis: 1921 m. lapkričio 8-oji – 1922 m. birželio 15-oji]. RUDIS, GEDIMINAS: Augustinas Voldemaras – nemokėjęs pralaimėti politikas [Augusti- nas Voldemaras was a Politician Who Did Not Know How to Lose], in: Lietuvos Respublikos ministrai pirmininkai 1918-1940, Vilnius 1997, pp. 182-215. RŪKŠTELĖ, ANTANAS: Vilniaus kryžiai [Crosses of Vilnius], Kaunas 1937. S.P. [JANULAITIS, AUGUSTINAS]: Neprigulminga Lietuva [Independent Lithuania], in: Darbininkų kalendorius 1904 metams, London 1904, pp. 45-50. SAVICKIS, JURGIS: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 4, Kaunas 1995 [SAVICKIS, Raštai, vol. 4]. SAWICKI, JAN: Mykolas Romeris ir buvusios Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės žemių tautinės problemos [Mykolas Römeris and National Problems of the Lands of the Former Grand Duchy of Lithuania], Vilnius 1999 (Lietuvių Atgimimo Istori- jos studijos, 15). SCHWEIGER, ALEXANDRA: Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten. Polnische Ostkonzepte der späten Teilungszeit (1890-1918), Marburg 2014 (Studien zur Ostmitteleuropa- forschung, 28). Seimo stenogramos. 3-asis Seimas, III Sesija, 69-asis posėdis. 1927 m. vasario 25 d. [Minutes of the Seimas. The 3rd Seimas, the third session, the 69th sitting. 25 Feb- ruary 1927], Kaunas 1927. SENN, ALFRED ERICH: The Great Powers, Lithuania and the Vilna Question, 1920-1928, Leiden 1966. SHYBEKA, ZAKHAR: Narys gistoryi Belarusi. 1795-2002 [Essay on the History of Bela- rus. 1795-2002], Minsk 2002.

227 SILBER, MARCOS: Lithuania? But Which? The Changing Political Attitude of the Jewish Political Elite in East Central Europe toward Emerging Lithuania, 1915-1919, in: VLADAS SIRUTAVIČIUS, DARIUS STALIŪNAS (eds.): Pragmatic Alliance. Jewish-Lithu- anian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the 20th Century, Budapest – New York 2011, pp. 119-157. SIRUTAVIČIUS, VLADAS: Tautiškumo kriterijai multietninių visuomenių statistikoje. XIX a. vidurio Lietuvos pavyzdys [Criteria for Nationality in the Statistics of Multi-ethnic Societies. The Example of Lithuania in the Middle of the 19th Century], in: Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1998, Vilnius 1999, pp. 74-85 [SIRUTAVIČIUS, Tautišku- mo]. SIRUTAVIČIUS, VLADAS – STALIŪNAS, DARIUS (eds.): Pragmatic Alliance. Jewish-Lithu- anian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the 20th Century, Budapest – New York 2011. ŠLIOGERIS, VACLOVAS: Antanas Smetona. Žmogus ir valstybininkas [Antanas Smetona. Man and Statesman], Cleveland 1966. SMALIANCHUK, ALES: Belaruskiia simvaly Vil’ni [Belarusian Symbols of Vilnius], in: Homo historicus 2009, Vilnius 2010, pp. 327-343. SMETONA, ANTANAS: Lithuania propria, in: Darbai ir dienos 1996, 2, pp. 191-234. SNYDER, TIMOTHY: The Reconstruction of Nations. Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Bela- rus, 1569-1999, New Haven – London 2003. SPEIČYTĖ, BRIGITA: Anapus ribos. Maironis ir istorinė Lietuva [Beyond the Border. Maironis and Historical Lithuania], Vilnius 2012. SREBRAKOWSKI, ALEKSANDER: Sejm Wileński 1922 roku. Idea i jej realizacja [Vilnius Parliament of 1922. The Idea and its Realisation], Wrocław 1993. STAKAUSKAS, JUOZAS: Trys lietuvių tautos pagrindai [Three Foundations of the Lithua- nian Nation], edited by GEDIMINAS RUDIS, Vilnius 2014. Stolica Apostolska a biskup Jerzy Matulewicz, 1916-1921 [The Holy See and Bishop Jerzy Matulewicz, 1916-1921], Warszawa 1996. STALIŪNAS, DARIUS: Kauno vizija XX a. pradžioje [Kaunas’ Vision at the Beginning of the 20th Century], in: Darbai ir dienos 1997, 4, pp. 59-64 [STALIŪNAS, Kauno vizija]. IDEM: Die Teilung des Kulturerbes des Großfürstentums Litauen und der Schutz der historischen Denkmäler vom Ende des 19. bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, in: Nordost-Archiv. Zeitschrift für Regionalgeschichte 6 (1997), 1: Das Denkmal im nördlichen Ostmitteleuropa im 20. Jahrhundert. Politischer Kontext und nationale Funktion, pp. 147-166 [STALIŪNAS, Die Teilung]. IDEM: Visuomenė be universiteto? (Aukštosios mokyklos atkūrimo problema Lietuvo- je: XIX a. vidurys – XX a. pradžia) [Society Without a University? (The Problem of the Re-Establishment of a Higher Educational Institution in Lithuania: the Mid- dle of the 19th – the Beginning of the 20th Centuries)], Vilnius 2000 [STALIŪNAS, Visuomenė]. IDEM: An Awkward City: Vilnius as a Regional Centre in Russian Nationality Poli- cy (ca. 1860-1914), in: ANDRZEJ NOWAK (ed.): Russia and Eastern Europe: applied “imperiology”, Kraków 2006, pp. 222-243 [STALIŪNAS, An Awkward City].

228 IDEM: Rusų kalba kaip lietuvių ir žydų komunikacijos priemonė: laikraštis “Naš kraj” (1914) [The Russian Language as a Means of Communication between Lithu- anians and Jews: the Newspaper “Naš kraj” [Our Land] (1914)], in: JURGITA ŠI- AUČIŪNAITĖ-VERBICKIENĖ (ed.): Abipusis pažinimas: lietuvių ir žydų kultūriniai saitai (Specialusis “Lietuvos istorijos studijų” leidinys (vol. 8)), Vilnius 2010, pp. 161-181 [STALIŪNAS, Rusų]. IDEM: Collaboration of Lithuanians and Jews during the Elections to the First and the Second Dumas, in: VLADAS SIRUTAVIČIUS, IDEM (eds.): A Pragmatic Alliance: Jew- ish-Lithuanian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the 20th Century, Budapest – New York 2011, pp. 45-75 [STALIŪNAS, Collaboration]. IDEM: Lietuvos idėja Aušroje [The Idea of Lithuania in “Aušra”], in: Archivum Lithu- anicum 15 (2013), pp. 271-292 [STALIŪNAS, Lietuvos]. Steigiamojo Seimo darbai, 1 sąs. [Proceedings of the Constituent Seimas, copybook 1], Kaunas 1921 [Steigiamojo, 1 sąs.]. Steigiamojo Seimo darbai [posėdžių stenogramos], 4 sąs. [Proceedings of the Con- stituent Seimas [Shorthand Records of the Sittings], copybook 4], Kaunas 1920 [Steigiamojo, 4 sąs.]. Steigiamojo Seimo darbai, 9 sąs. [Proceedings of the Constituent Seimas, copybook 9], Kaunas 1921 [Steigiamojo, 9 sąs.]. Steigiamojo Seimo darbai, 11 sąs. [Proceedings of the Constituent Seimas, copybook 11], Kaunas 1921 [Steigiamojo, 11 sąs.]. Steigiamojo Seimo darbai, 32 sąs. [Proceedings of the Constituent Seimas, copybook 32], Kaunas 1921 [Steigiamojo, 32 sąs.]. STOCZEWSKA, BARBARA: Litwa, Białoruś, Ukraina w myśli politycznej Leona Wa- silewskiego [Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine in Leon Wasilewski’s Political Thought], Kraków 1998. STRAVINSKIENĖ, VITALIJA: Tarp gimtinės ir tėvynės: Lietuvos SSR gyventojų repatriaci- ja į Lenkija (1944-1947, 1955-1959 m.) [Between Mother-country and Homeland: Repatriation of Citizens of the Lithuanian SSR to Poland (1944-1947, 1955-1959)], Vilnius 2011 [STRAVINSKIENĖ, Tarp gimtinės]. STRELCOVAS, SIMONAS: Antrojo pasaulinio karo pabėgėliai Lietuvoje 1939-1940 metais [Refugees of the Second World War in Lithuania in 1939-1940], Šiauliai 2010. SUBAČIUS, PAULIUS: Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė. Tautinio išsivadavimo kultūra [The Forge of Lithuanian Identity. Culture of National Liberation], Vilnius 1999. SURGAILIS, GINTAUTAS: Antrojo pasaulinio karo pabėgėliai ir internuotieji Lenkijos ka- riai Lietuvoje (1939 09-1940) [Refugees of the Second World War and Interned Polish Soldiers in Lithuania (September 1939-1940)], Vilnius 2005. Suvalkų sutartis: faktai ir interpretacijos = Umowa Suwalska: fakty i interpretacje [Treaty of Suwalki: Facts and Interpretations], Vilnius 2012. TAMOŠIŪNAS, MINDAUGAS: Lietuvos užsienio atstovų konferencija Kaune 1921 metais [Conference of Foreign Representatives of Lithuania in Kaunas, in 1921], in: Lietu- vos istorijos metraštis 1995, Vilnius 1996, pp. 241-266. TARKA, KRZYSZTOF: Komendant Wilk: z dziejów Wileńskiej Armii Krajowej [Com- mandant Wilk: from the History of the Home Army in Vilnius], Warszawa 1990 [TARKA, Komendant].

229 IDEM: Konfrontacja czy współpraca? Litwa w polityce Rządu Polskiego na uchodźst- wie 1939-1945 [Confrontation or Cooperation? Lithuania in the Policy of the Polish Immigration Government in 1939-1945], Opole 1998 [TARKA, Konfrontacja]. TAUBER, JOACHIM: German Eastern Policy, 1917-1918, in: Lithuanian Historical Stud- ies 13 (2008), pp. 67-74. Tautiškosios lietuvių demokratų partijos programos projektas [Draft Program of the National Lithuanian Democratic Party], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studijos, vol. 1: Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: nuo asmens iki partijos, Vilnius 1990, pp. 184-199. TISMANEANU, VLADIMIR: Išsivadavimo fantazijos: pokomunistinės Europos mitai, demokratija ir nacionalizmas [Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism, and Myth in Post-Communist Europe], Vilnius 2003. TOMASZEWSKI, LONGIN: Wileńszczyzna lat wojny i okupacji [The Vilnius Region in the Years of War and Occupation], Warszawa 2010. TRUSKA, LIUDAS: Emigracija iš Lietuvos 1868-1914 metais [Emigration from Lithua- nia in 1868-1914], in: Mokslų akademijos darbai, Serija A 1(10) (1961), pp. 71-85 [Truska, Emigracija]. IDEM: Ilgas kelias į Vilnių [A Long Way to Vilnius], in: Kultūros barai 2010, 5, pp. 58- 65 [TRUSKA, Ilgas]. UNUCHAK, ANDREI: “Nasha niva” i belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh (1906-1915 gg.) [“Na- sha niva” and Belarusian National Movement (1906-1915)], Minsk 2006 [UN- UCHAK, “Nasha niva” i belaruski]. IDEM: Nasha niva i belarusskoe natsional’noe dvizhenie nachala XX v. [Nasha niva and the Belarusian National Movement at the Beginning of the 20th C.], in: Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 12 (2011), pp. 172-180 [UNUCHAK, Nasha niva i belarusskoe]. URBŠYS, JUOZAS: Atsiminimai [Reminiscences], Kaunas 1990. UŽDAVINYS, VINCAS – KAUZA, V. (eds.): Vilniaus baras [Vilnius Section], Kaunas 1929. VAIŽGANTAS [TUMAS, JUOZAS]: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 14, Kaunas 1929 [VAIŽ- GANTAS, Raštai, vol. 14]. IDEM: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 11, Vilnius 1999 [VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 11]. IDEM: Raštai [Collected Works], vol. 12, Vilnius 2000 [VAIŽGANTAS, Raštai, vol. 12]. VEILENTIENĖ, AUDRONĖ: Nepriklausomybė ar unija? Steigiamojo Seimo požiūris į santykius su Lenkija [Independence or Union? The Attitude of the Constituent Parlia- ment to the Relations with Poland], in: Istorija 2009, 4 (76), pp. 30-38. VIDMANTAS, EDVARDAS: Lietuvos darbininkų periodinė spauda 1895-1917 [Periodical Press of Lithuanian Workers in 1895-1917], Vilnius 1979 [VIDMANTAS, Lietuvos]. IDEM: Religinis tautinis sąjūdis Lietuvoje XIX a. antrojoje pusėje – XX a. pradžioje [Religious National Movement in Lithuania in the Second Half of the 19th Century – the Beginning of the 20th Century], Vilnius 1995 [VIDMANTAS, Religinis]. VILEIŠIS, ANTANAS: Vilniaus lietuvių dviklasė mokykla 1907-1917 m. [Vilnius Lithua- nian School of Two Forms in 1907-1917], Vilnius 1917 [ANTANAS VILEIŠIS]. NERIS [VILEIŠIS, PETRAS]: Trumpa geograﬁ ja, arba Żemēs apraszymas [Brief Geogra- phy or Description of the Earth], Chicago 1898.

230 VILKELIS, GINTAUTAS: Lietuvos ir Lenkijos santykiai Tautų Sąjungoje [Lithuanian- Polish Relations in the League of Nations], Vilnius 2006. Vilniaus geležinis fondas [Vilnius Iron Fund], Kaunas 1934. Vilniaus kalendorius 1908 metams [Vilnius Calendar for 1908], Vilnius 1907. Vilniaus kalendorius 1913 metams [Vilnius Calendar for 1913], Vilnius 1912. Vilniaus medis: vienkartinis leidinys, Vilniaus medžio sodinimo šventei, Vilniaus, Lietuvos sostinės 600 m. sukaktuvėms paminėti [Vilnius Tree: One-off Publication, to Commemorate the Festival of Planting the Vilnius Tree, the 600th anniversary of Vilnius, Capital of Lithuania], Kaunas 1924. Vilnius ir Vilniaus kraštas [Vilnius and Vilnius Region], Kaunas 1932. VYŠNIAUSKAS, ARŪNAS: Lietuvos socialdemokratijos politinė transformacija 1898 metais [Political Transformation of Lithuanian Social Democracy in 1898], in: Lietuvių Atgimimo Istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a. – XX a. pradžia), Vilnius 1991, pp. 67-131. VYTURYS [DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS, MEČISLOVAS]: Tevynainiu giesme [The Song of the Countrymen], Ragainė 1884. WAPIŃSKI, ROMAN: Roman Dmowski, Lublin 1988 [WAPIŃSKI, Roman Dmowski]. IDEM: Historia polskiej myśli politycznej XIX i XX wieku [The History of the Polish Political Thought in the 19th – 20th Centuries], Gdańsk 1997 [WAPIŃSKI, Historia]. WASILEWSKI, LEON: Litwa i Białoruś. Przeszłość – teraźniejszość-tendencje rozwojowe [Lituania and Belarus. Past – Present – Development Tendencies], Kraków [1912]. WEEKS, THEODORE R.: Monuments and Memory: Immortalizing Count M. N. Muraviev in Vilna, 1898, in: Nationalities Papers 27 (1999), 4, pp. 551-564 [WEEKS, Monu- ments]. IDEM: Population Politics in Vilnius 1944-1947: A Case Study of Socialist-Sponsored Ethnic Cleansing, in: Post-Soviet Affairs 23 (2007), 1, pp. 76-95 [WEEKS, Popula- tion]. IDEM: Creating Lithuanian Patriotism in a Polish-Jewish City: The Wilno/Vilnius Lith- uanian Press, 1904-1922, in: ANDRZEJ NOWAK, ANDRZEJ A. ZIĘBA (eds.): Formuły patriotizmu w Europie Wschodniej i Środkowej od Nowożytności do współczes- ności, Kraków 2009, pp. 251-263 [WEEKS, Creating]. IDEM: Vilnius in World War I, 1914-1920, in: Nordost-Archiv 17 (2008): Über den Weltkrieg hinaus: Kriegserfahrungen in Ostmitteleuropa 1914-1921, 2009, pp. 34- 57 [WEEKS, Vilnius]. IDEM: Between Poland and Lithuania: Jews and the Vilnius Question, 1918-1925, in: VLADAS SIRUTAVIČIUS, DARIUS STALIŪNAS (eds.): A Pragmatic Alliance: Jewish-Lith- uanian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the 20th Century, Budapest – New York 2011, pp. 207-227 [WEEKS, Between]. IDEM: The War of Words: Polish vs. Lithuanian Rhetoric about Vilnius/Wilno 1917- 1925, in: ANDŽĖJ PUKŠTO, GIEDRĖ MILERYTĖ (eds.): Lietuva ir Lenkija XX amžiaus geopolitinėje vaizduotėje, Kaunas 2012, pp. 59-74 [WEEKS, The War]. WENDLAND, ANNA VERONIKA: Region ohne Nationalität, Kapitale ohne Volk: Das Wil- na-Gebiet als Gegenstand polnischer und litauischer nationaler Integrationsprojekte (1900-1940), in: Comparativ. Leipziger Beiträge zur Universalgeschichte und ver-

231 gleichenden Gesellschaftsforschung 15 (2005), 2, pp. 77-100 [WENDLAND, Region ohne Nationalität]. IDEM: Stadtgeschichtskulturen. Lemberg und Wilna als multiple Erinnerungsorte, in: MARTIN AUST, KRZYSZTOF RUCHNIEWICZ et al. (eds.): Verﬂ ochtene Erinnerungen. Polen und seine Nachbarn im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Köln et al. 2009 (Visuelle Geschichtskultur, 3), pp. 31-60 [WENDLAND, Stadtgeschichtskulturen]. WHITE, GEORGE W.: Nationalism and Territory. Constructing Group Identity in South- eastern Europe, Lanham et al. 2000. WILANOWSKI, CYPRIAN: Konspiracyjna działalność duchowieństwa katolickiego na Wileńszczyźnie w latach 1939-1944 [Conspirational Activities of the Catholic Cler- gy in the Vilnius Region in 1939-1945], Warszawa 2000. WINCENCIAK, WITOLD: Szkolnictwo polskie na kresach wschodnich w latach 1939- 1941 [Education of the Poles on Eastern Borders in 1939-1941], Łomża 2004. WINICHAKUL, THONGCHAI: Siam Mapped. A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation, Honolulu 1994. WOŁKONOWSKI, JAROSŁAW: Okręg Wileński Związku Walki Zbrojnej Armii Krajowej w latach 1939-1945 [Union of Armed Combat of the Home Army, Vilnius District 1939-1945], Warszawa 1996. WYSZCZELSKI, LECH: Wojna o Kresy Wschodnie 1918-1921 [Struggle for the Eastern Borderlands in 1918-1921], Warszawa 2011. ŽADEIKIS, PRANCIŠKUS: Didžiojo karo užrašai [Notes on the Great War], Vilnius 2013. ŽALTAUSKAITĖ, VILMA: Dar kartą keletas pamąstymų apie prelatą ir žąsis [Once Again Some Considerations about the Prelate and the Geese], in: Literatūra ir menas from 11.04.2008, no. 15, pp. 2-3. ŽALYS, VYTAUTAS: Lietuvos diplomatijos istorija (1925-1940) [History of Lithuanian Diplomacy (1925-1940)], vol. 1, Vilnius 2006. ZASZTOWT, LESZEK: Ad stalitsy da pravintsyi. Vilnia u struktury paniatsia Uskhodnikh Kresau u polskim gistarychnym naratyve [From the Capital to the Province. Vilnius as a Part of the Conception of Eastern Borders in the Polish Historical Narrative], in: Palitychna sfera 18-19, 2012, pp. 87-94. ŽEMAITIS, ZIGMAS: Vilnius Lietuvai ir Lietuva Vilniui [Vilnius to Lithuania and Lithu- ania to Vilnius], Kaunas 1928. ŽEPKAITĖ, REGINA: Lietuva tarptautinės politikos labirintuose (1918-1922 m.) [Lithu- ania in the Labyrinths of the International Policy (1918-1922)], Vilnius 1973 [ŽEP- KAITĖ, Lietuva]. IDEM: Diplomatija imperializmo tarnyboje: Lietuvos ir Lenkijos santykiai 1919-1939 m. [Diplomacy in the Service of Imperialism: Relations between Lithuania and Po- land in 1919-1939], Vilnius 1980 [ŽEPKAITĖ, Diplomatija]. IDEM: Vilniaus istorijos atkarpa: 1939 m. spalio 27 d. – 1940 m. birželio 15 d. [Frag- ment of the History of Vilnius: October 1939 – June 1940], Vilnius 1990 [ŽEPKAITĖ, Vilniaus]. ŽILINSKAS, JURGIS: Atsiminimai [Memoirs], Vilnius 2005. ŽIUGŽDA, JUOZAS: Vilniaus miesto istorija nuo Spalio revoliucijos iki dabartinių dienų [The History of the City of Vilnius from the October Revolution to the Present Day], Vilnius 1972.

232 ŽULYS, AUDRIUS: Dar kartą 1938 m. kovo mėn. Lenkijos ultimatumą Lietuvai klausimu [Once Again About the Polish Ultimatum to Lithuania in March 1938], in: ANDŽEJ PUKŠTO, GIEDRĖ MILERYTĖ (eds.): Lietuva ir Lenkija XX amžiaus geopolitinėje vaizduotėje, Kaunas 2012, pp. 99-112.

233 Index

Abramowicz, Ludwik 122 Domaševičius, Andrius 30, 31 Alantas, Vytautas 108 Drazdauskas, Valys 204 Alseika, Danielius 154, 156 Dubinskas, Andrius 43 Ambraziejus (Ambražas), Juozas 13, Duž-Duševskis, Klaudijus 102 30, 31 Assmann, Aleida 27 Gabrys-Paršaitis, Juozas 22 Galvanauskas, Ernestas 86 Bakšys, Juozas 2 Gediminas, Duke 25, 26, 59, 88, 90, Baliński, Michał 54 141, 198 Basanavičius, Jonas 15, 16, 36, 42-44, Gedvilas, Mečislovas 203 48, 102, 144, 145, 186, 197 Grinius, Kazys 8, 30, 76, 81, 86, 120 Beckerath von 51 Grušas, Juozas 125 Bethmann-Hollweg, Theobald von 51 Gužutis-Fromas, Aleksandras 18 Bičiūnas, Vytautas 142 Bielinis, Kipras 14 Herbačiauskas, Juozapas Albinas 74, Biliūnas, Jonas 9 75 Binkis, Kazys 81 Hymans, Paul 81, 83-86, 183 Biržiška, Mykolas 9, 15, 53, 54, 67, 72, 78, 87, 102, 114, 127, 131 Ivinskis, Zenonas 108, 175 Biržiška, Vaclovas 69 Bistras, Leonas 111, 117 Jałbrzykowski, Romuald 196, 197 Brubaker, Rogers 149 Juška, Antanas 127 Bulota, Andrius 25 Juškytė, Jadvyga 16

Čečeta, Viktoras 189 Kapsukas-Mickevičius, Vincas 65, 67, Čepinskis, Vincas 111 68 Černius, Jonas 164, 171 Katelbach, Tadeusz 101 Charwat, Franciszek 162, 164, 165, 175 Kemėšis, Fabijonas 114 Kirkor, Adam Honory 15 Dambrauskas, Aleksandras (Jakštas, Klimas, Petras 2, 53, 56, 82, 189 Adomas) 17, 18, 59, 195 Konstantinas, Olšauskas 46, 59 Dauguvietis, Borisas 199 Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy 15 Dmowski, Roman 70 Krzyżanowski, Bronisław 187

234 Lapinskienė, Alma 156 Purickis, Juozas 107 Laurinavičius, Česlovas 183 Putvinskis, Vladas 105 Lenin-Ul’janov, Vladimir 39, 202 Leonas, Petras 2, 43 Ratti, Ambrogio Damiano Achille 71 Liekis, Šarūnas 189 Reinys, Mečislovas 94, 114 Lorents, Ivan 100 Reisonas, Karolis 144 Łossowski, Piotr 193 Rimša, Petras 23 Lozoraitis, Stasys 165 Rodomanskis, Andrius 114 Luckievič, Anton 50 Römeris, Mykolas (Römer, Michał) 14, Luxemburg, Rosa 39 84, 99, 122, 175, 176, 200

Maironis-Mačiulis, Jonas 21, 59 Šalkauskis, Stasys 112 Makauskas, Bronius 152, 155 Samajauskas, Kazimieras 17 Malinauskas, Donatas 31, 48 Sapieha, Eustachy 76 Matulaitis, Jurgis 60, 64 Savickis, Jurgis 142, 174, 175 Matulionis, Povilas 31 Schilunovitsch, Dmitri 67 Merkys, Antanas 183, 187, 192, 193, Šilingas, Stasys 46, 48, 114 199 Silvestraitis-Davainis, Mečislovas 6, 7, Mickiewicz, Adam 12 26, 27, 44 Miłosz, Czesław 1 Škirpa, Kazys 66, 70, 162 Mironas, Vladas 59, 162 Šlapelienė, Marija 35 Mitkiewicz, Leon 164 Šlepetys, Jonas 194 Molotov, Viacheslav 173 Sleževičius, Mykolas 66, 95 Moraczewski, Jędrzej Edward 65 Šliogeris, Vaclovas 160 Moravskis, Alfonsas 30 Šliūpas, Jonas 44 Motieka, Egidijus 11 Smetona, Antanas 2, 11, 13, 14, 22, 29, 42-44, 64, 96, 108, 114, 115, 120, Narbutt, Theodor 15 121, 131, 187, 199 Nastopka, Stasys 77 Smith, Anthony 3 Natkevičius, Ladas 173 Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Joseph 5, 67, Niliūnas-Nyka, Alfonsas 174, 204 174, 201, 202 Nora, Pierre 3 Stašinskas, Vladas 63 Staugaitis, Justinas 94, 112 Olšauskas, Konstantinas 46, 59 Sverdlov, Jakov 68 Osóbka-Morawski, Edward 203 Szyszkowski, Bolesław 179

Pajaujis, Juozas 54 Tismaneanu, Vladimir 110 Pakštas, Kazys 100, 106 Trimakas, Antanas 170 Petrulis, Vytautas 94 Tūbelis, Juozas 162 Pfeil, Traugott von 50 Tyla, Antanas 35 Piłsudski, Józef 70, 71, 73-75, 79, 88, 97, 185 Urach,Wilhelm von 54 Prapuolenis, Kazimieras 16 Urbšys, Juozas 173, 174 Puida, Kazys 96 Uždavinys, Vincas 120, 122

235 Vaižgantas-Tumas, Juozas 107, 125 Yčas, Jonas 63 Verbickis, K. 16 Vileišis, Antanas 31 Zaunius, Dovas 100 Vileišis, Petras 15, 32 Zechini, Antonio 93 Višinskis, Povilas 28 Żeligowski, Lucjan 80, 81, 83, 86, 88, Voldemaras, Augustinas 43, 63-66, 81, 191 96-98, 116, 120, 121 Žemaitis, Zigmas 102, 114, 152, 153 Vytautas, Grand Duke 22, 59, 117, 144, Žepkaitė, Regina 179 146, 198 Žilinskas, Jurgis 27

Wasilewski, Leon 73 Wejtko, Władysław 67

236 Verlag Herder-Institut Marburg 2015

ISBN 978-3-87969-401-3